Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

SUMMER TIME

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order, 1951, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (U.K. HIGH COMMISSIONER)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how long it will be before the High Commissioner to the Union of South. Africa ends his period of office.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As already announced, the appointment of the Hon. Sir Evelyn Baring as High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in the Union of South Africa expires at the end of June next.

Mr. Johnson: When that time comes, will the Prime Minister consider the wisdom of appointing a separate Commissioner for the Protectorates, thus indicating to the Union of South Africa that

the black people of Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland are in need of special care and attention?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any need. I think that the position of His Majesty's Government is perfectly plain.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Tinplate

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that canning factories are closing down owing to the shortage of tinplate; and if he will immediately stop exports to avoid unemployment.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 29th January on this subject.

Mr. Williams: Since that reply said that exports of tinplate were vital, would the Minister say why they are vital, especially to the Argentine? We exported coal and have brought on a crisis, and we are now exporting tinplate and exactly the same thing happens.

Mr. Wilson: I have already made it clear that exports to the Argentine have been cut. As to the reason why exports are vital, I would remind the hon. Member both of certain imports into this country and the very high priority requirements of the Commonwealth in that connection.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the Minister not aware that unemployment is actually being caused in Perthshire and other parts of the country through the closing of canning factories? Has he no interest in that particularly important matter?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. That question has already been discussed in the House and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, we have reduced exports as far as we can.

20 and 21. Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the importance of maintaining food production from the canning factories situated in this country, he will ensure that the supply of tinplate


is made adequate for their requirements; and whether he will reduce the tinplate allocation to the Argentine;
(2) whether, in connection with the agreement which has been entered into between the Government and the Argentine Government in connection with the supply of tinplate for five years, steps will be taken to ensure that this agreement is ended by giving two months' notice at 30th June, 1951, so as to supply additional tinplate for canning of food in this country.

Mr. H. Wilson: As regards the hon. Member's first Question, I would refer him to the reply given on 29th January to the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams), and would add that Argentina is certainly one of the countries, exports to which are being restricted. As regards the hon. Member's second Question, the future of the Anglo-Argentine Trade and Payments Agreement could not be determined solely by reference to tinplate.

Mr. De la Bère: Why should the home producer of food, whose products are so sorely needed by the country today, be handicapped for the benefit of the foreigner? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the agreement should be terminated? If it is the case that it should be, why not do the right thing now, and not in the unknown future?

Mr. Wilson: I have said that most supplies are not going to what the hon. Gentleman calls "the foreigner" but to the Commonwealth. It would be extremely difficult to interfere with those supplies.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I was dealing with Argentina? This is thorough muddle. This is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the needs of the fishing industry?

Mr. Wilson: The Minister of Food and I are fully aware of the need for the products of the fishing industry, and other industries, and we are doing all we can to meet them in this matter.

Women's Vests

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he

proposes to take in respect of the report made to his Department from the Wholesale Textile Association that during the recent severe weather women's vests were being sold two inches short of the required length.

Mr. H. Wilson: The minimum lengths for women's utility vests are specified in the Utility Apparel (Women's and Maids' Underwear and Nightwear) (Manufacture and Supply) Order, 1949, and I have no evidence that utility vests are being sold which do not comply with the relevant provisions of this Order. These minima are those laid down by the Lingerie Committee of the British Standards Institution, on which manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers are represented.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the vast majority of women have a vested interest in this problem and are looking to the Minister to take the necessary action to protect the consumers' interest?

Mr. Wilson: I have no detailed information about the views of the vast majority of women on this question, but, as I said, there is a committee of the British Standards Institution on which at least three women are serving. When I get their views I shall consider what action should be taken.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does this Order provide for any elasticity in the size of women, or is there a utility size for them as well?

Mr. Wilson: I think that is fully looked after.

Raw Cotton Supplies

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now announce the result of his further discussions with the United States authorities on the question of securing more adequate supplies of raw cotton.

Mr. H. Wilson: My hon. Friend will have learnt from the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to Questions by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), on 13th February that it has now been decided that cotton will be one


of the raw materials to come within the purview of the commodity committees now being set up in Washington. In the meantime, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), on 23rd January.

Mr. Hynd: Could not my right hon. Friend add to these rather general replies and statements something which would ameliorate the feeling of uncertainty and disquiet in Lancashire about possible unemployment?

Mr. Wilson: I should very much like to ameliorate that condition of uncertainty and disquiet, but I cannot add to the statement I have already made, that we are disturbed and concerned about the size of the allocation of raw cotton which has been made to us and that we have taken this matter up very strongly—and are still doing so—with the United States Government.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: is this not one of the results of Government buying?

Mr. Wilson: I have already given an answer on that point to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). The right hon. Gentleman should know that the amount of cotton we get in this country is directly the result of the size of the allocation made by the United States Government, and that private buying or centralised buying would make no difference to that.

Mr. Hudson: We have only the right hon. Gentleman's word for that, and we do not accept it.

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept this: in the purchase of cotton by the Raw Cotton Commission outside the United States, the Commission have greatly increased the amount to far above anything which would be bought by private buying.

Production and Distribution (Census)

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many officials have been, or will be, involved with work in connection with the Census of Production and the Census of Distribution; how long they have been, or will be, occupied on this work; and what is

the estimated annual expenditure of each census.

Mr. H. Wilson: The number of officials engaged on work in connection with the Census of Production and the Census of Distribution was 1,126 on 1st February, 1951, and approximately this number will be required for the remainder of the year. In the first half of 1952, the number will be gradually reduced to about 750, as work on the present Census of Distribution approaches completion. A Census of Production is taken every year and a Census of Distribution in any year prescribed by order of the Board of Trade. Expenditure on Census of Production work during 1951 will be approximately £175,000; and that on the first Census of Distribution is estimated at £577,000, spread over about three years.

Mr. Hirst: Is the Minister aware that the numbers involved in industry, the time taken and the cost to industry and commerce are even greater than the phenomenal figures he has announced? Is he aware that delay in the compilation of Census of Production returns makes comparison wholly useless? In connection with the Census of Distribution, is he aware that the imposition of an omnibus return of that nature at this time is quite out of accord with the needs of the country?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain both that we have too many staff on the Census of Production and that the results of that census are too long delayed. There has been widespread feeling in all parts of the House that we needed the information which will be provided by the Census of Distribution. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that information of this kind is regularly collected in the United States.

Mr. Keeling: Is the President aware that the Central Organisation of Citizens' Advice Bureaux has been asked to lend a hand in the Census of Distribution by giving instruction to small traders? How can he reconcile that request with the cutting of the grant to the Bureaux?

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the Advice Bureaux will help traders very greatly in this matter. The question of the grant is


one to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Marlowe: Is it not the case that the Census of Distribution was decided upon long before the present rearmament programme arose; is it not now wholly out of accord with the present situation; and ought it not to be dropped?

Mr. De la Bère: It is utterly unjustifiable.

Heating Appliances (Hire Purchase)

Mr. Maudling: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the need for fuel economy, he will extend the provisions of Statutory Instrument No. 39, 1950, which restricts hire-purchase credit facilities for price-controlled goods, to electric fires.

Mr. H. Wilson: Domestic heating appliances are included in the current review of those price controls over consumer goods which have been withdrawn since the war. If, as a result of that review, statutory price control is reimposed over electric fires, the provisions of the Hire Purchase Order made under the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941, will again apply to them.

Mr. Maudling: Apart from the question of price control, is the Minister not aware that there are strong reasons, both financial and fuel saving, for curtailing excessive credit facilities for these fuel consuming appliances?

Mr. Wilson: There are many arguments which can be advanced on this subject. As I have said, if we bring back price control, which is at present being considered, this restriction will take effect automatically.

War Losses, Burma (Irish Claimants)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade why residents in Southern Ireland who have been British subjects throughout their lives cannot obtain compensation in respect of loss of property while serving in the Burma campaign, although large grants have been made to rehabilitate the civilians of Burma who did not fight in the campaign.

Mr. H. Wilson: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Extended Far Eastern Private Chattels Scheme, which enables payment of limited amounts to be made to United Kingdom British subjects who lost private chattels in British and former British territories in the Far East as a result of the Japanese invasion and have returned to reside permanently in the United Kingdom. These are ex gratia payments made by the United Kingdom Government to enable people to re-establish themselves here and are not payable to persons who settle outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that when these people were taken off their jobs originally they were living in the United Kingdom, as it was then part of the United Kingdom? Does he not therefore think that at least an approach should be made to the Government of Southern Ireland to see whether some action can be taken to help these people, who are really suffering?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is raising a very wide question. He will see from the answer which I have given that there is no payment as of right to any persons affected in this way and that the ex gratia payments are limited to those who have come back to the United Kingdom to live.

Mr. Teeling: The right hon. Gentleman says that the payment is not of right, but it is given to all United Kingdom citizens because they lost their goods in fighting for our side.

Mr. Wilson: It was given to enable those coming back here to settle in this country. In most cases they had lost all their chattels and possessions and these grants were made so that they could reestablish themselves in this country.

Rayon Production (Sulphuric Acid)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that rayon production has been cut recently by 15 per cent. owing to the shortage of sulphuric acid; and since rayon has risen least in price of all fibres used in the manufacture of clothing, what steps he proposes to take to increase supplies of


sulphuric acid, and so avoid further unnecessary rise in clothing prices.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) on 30th January.

Mr. Osborne: As I have not that reply with me, may I ask the Minister whether the shortage is due partly to the lack of dollars which the Treasury would not supply or whether it is due to a physical shortage which could not be foreseen?

Mr. Wilson: It is not to the slightest extent due to the lack of dollars. Dollars were allocated for the full amount we were able to get last year, but we were notified some months ago by the sulphur producers of the United States that they were not able to maintain the rate of supply to us. Since then, when a small cut was made, the American Government have imposed strict export licensing and our allocation is again radically insufficient to meet the needs of the rayon industry and other industries.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Could the President assure the House that this question of sulphur shortage will receive high priority in the forthcoming talks which, we understand, he is to have soon in America?

Mr. Wilson: If and when I am able to go there, naturally there would be a number of questions of common interest, on economic affairs to discuss. The question of sulphur and other raw materials is, of course, very important, but I would inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in the very near future the Commodity Committee, which deals with sulphur, will be meeting.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: When is the Sulphur Committee to meet? Is even the composition of the Committee known at the moment? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to secure sulphur from sources other than the United States?

Mr. Wilson: I understand that the Committee will meet in the next few days, although I am not sure of the exact date. We have given every encouragement to the purchases of sulphur in any form wherever it may be found, but there are

very few supplies, available outside the United States. We are, of course, encouraging the maximum use of pyrites and other alternatives, but it takes a very long time to convert the plants.

Food Storage Displays

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange, in conjunction with authorities responsible for the Festival of Britain, a demonstration for overseas visitors of modern equipment for food storage which would include refrigerated storage capacity, road and railway vehicles and containers, and also demonstrate full and small scale models.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is not practicable at the Festival of Britain to stage comprehensive displays of all branches of British industry or of any special industry as indicated in the Question. The British Industries Fair, which runs from 30th April to 11th May, and is open to all overseas visitors, coincides with the opening of the Festival of Britain; and at the Birmingham section there will be a display of domestic refrigerating appliances and equipment. I consider that a special annual trade fair of this kind is one of the best methods of promoting exports since it provides an adequate meeting place for the overseas buyer and the fully qualified representative of the exhibiting firm.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the President aware that there are many visitors, other than professional buyers, who come to the British Industries Fair and who would find value in such a display, in view of the prime importance of the transport and storage of foodstuffs in the world today?

Mr. Wilson: It would not be possible, under the Festival of Britain arrangements, to include representation of all important industries, but I hope that as many of these visitors as possible, whether they are trade buyers or not, will visit the British Industries Fair.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members seem a little surprised, but I have been rather strict today on supplementaries. I "let things rip" yesterday and, with luck, we only just got to Question No. 45. I am hoping that we shall do better today, and that is why I am stirring things up a bit

Hotels, London (Derequisitioning)

Commander Noble: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that, when it is next possible to consider the derequisitioning of any London hotels, he will arrange for formal discussions with the owners' agents and make it quite clear that de-requisitioning is in fact contemplated.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is not always possible to consult owners of requisitioned premises at an early stage when we are considering whether it is possible to relinquish them, but owners are always advised as soon as it is clear that their premises can, in fact, be given up.

Commander Noble: If I put another Question down in a few weeks' time could the Minister then give us some details of his plan for next year, so that there may be the earliest possible publicity?

Mr. Wilson: I hope that will be possible.

Raw Materials (Stocks)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade with reference to paragraph 29 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets, what stocks of raw materials are expected to show a loss of £1,089,918 where the selling price value is less than cost; and what other stocks are expected to show a loss of £1,267,778 in repect of deterioration.

Mr. H. Wilson: Stocks held at the close of an accouuting year are valued for Trading Account purposes at cost or at market value, whichever is the lower. At the close of the 1949–50 accounting year, the selling prices then current of certain stocks of various materials, mainly timber, wallboard, fertiliser materials, hides and skins, flax and silk, were less than cost, and accounting provision was made accordingly. In certain cases, mainly hardwood and plywood, paper making materials, fertiliser materials, flax and rubber, provision was also made, as is customary, for possible physical deterioration of stocks. It does not follow, of course, that these losses will be incurred, and, to the extent to which the provisions are not required, they will be credited in future Accounts.

Mr. Osborne: As the world prices of all these commodities have risen in 12 months, surely the fall in the set-off against possible loss must be due to real deterioration in the stocks. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is no negligence in looking after them?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, of course, that these figures relate to 31st March, 1950, and that a number of prices had fallen before 31st March, 1950. Since then, of course, as he knows, prices have taken an upward turn, and it is very probable that this paper loss may not be incurred.

Fertilisers (Accounts)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade why his accounts for fertilisers are not such as to enable the examiners to satisfy themselves of their accuracy for 1948–49; and what steps he is taking to produce the evidence required by the examiners.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Trading Accounts of the Fertilisers Directorate for 1948–49 related to the trading year ended 30th June, 1948. The examiners' qualification of their report was due to difficulties in applying all the checks they considered necessary in dealing with an account, which, by reason of the system of subsidies in force, is particularly complicated. The accounting system has since been revised and special measures taken to brink the work up to date. The examiners' work on the accounts for the year ended 30th June, 1949, was satisfactorily completed.

Mr. Osborne: Since the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report is nearly 12 months after the end of the year with which he is dealing, is the right hon. Gentleman, satisfied that it does not represent censure on some people in his Department for not doing properly the work they should have done?

Mr. Wilson: The year to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers was a year in which there were tremendous complications, mainly arising out of the war, because of subsidies. It would take, in my view, an unwarrantable number of staff to try to track down all those figures and subsidies for a past period. The figures for the following year were quite satisfactory.

Timber Imports

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to secure the chartering of sufficient tonnage to bring softwood timber purchased overseas to this country, in view of the continuous reduction of stocks.

Mr. H. Wilson: Tonnage has already been chartered for nearly all the North American softwood available for shipment to arrive in this country by the end of June. A considerable amount of chartering has also been done for later shipments. Chartering for privately imported softwood is the responsibility of the shippers or importers concerned.

Mr. Price: Could my right hon. Friend say how many standards of softwood timber there are still abroad, unshipped?

Mr. Wilson: Not without notice.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the report of the Chamber of Shipping about the chaos caused to the freight market by the action of his bulk buying department?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, and in the case of a number of those reports, we do not always accept them at their face value.

Mr. John E. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to see that freight charges for softwood timber are kept at a reasonably low level?

Mr. Nabarro: Stop buying in bulk.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not a fact that much urgently needed timber has not been shipped because the Government have commandeered shipping space, which would have been available for the carriage of timber, and which is now being used for freighting coal instead?

Mr. Wilson: As I made clear a week ago, timber was delayed by a number of calls upon the freight market, of which one, undoubtedly, was coal, and another Russian grain.

Mr. Vane: asked the President of the Board of Trade how the volume and price of mining timber imported into this country in the second half of 1950 compares with the volume and price of similar timber imported in the second half of 1949.

Mr. H. Wilson: One million, one hundred and five thousand tons of mining timber valued at £8.1 million were imported in the second half of 1949, compared with 721,000 tons valued at £4.9 million in the same period of 1950. The average value per ton for imports as recorded in the Trade Accounts was £7.3 in July—December, 1949, and £6.8 in the last half of 1950.

New Factories, Inverness

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken during the last 12 months to encourage the development of new industries in Inverness.

Mr. H. Wilson: The attention of several firms wishing to establish new factories has been drawn to the facilities available in Inverness. During the last 12 months two small factory extensions and one small factory re-building have been approved for Inverness. Work on the latter started at the end of 1950.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: While I am grateful for that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Longman airfield site was earmarked several years ago for industrial development, and that none so far has been made? Is he aware that an access road is badly needed and that the tweed industry is being badly handicapped by the 66⅔ Purchase Tax? Would he remind the Minister of Transport that transport costs are crippling new development in the Highlands?

Mr. Wilson: I have made clear that we are doing what we can to encourage firms to go there. We have no powers to force them to go there. I do not suppose that the noble Lord wants us to force firms to go there. I should, however, like to make clear to him that although we are trying to deal with the Inverness problem, we inherited a number of development problems much more serious than that, which are now being cleared up.

Tariff Conference, Torquay (Resolutions)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the text of the resolutions passed by the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at their meeting at Torquay last autumn.

Mr. H. Wilson: I do not think that these resolutions are of sufficient general interest to justify publication as a Command Paper, but copies are being placed in the Library. I am also sending copies to the hon. Member.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much it costs this country to pass a resolution of not sufficient value to be printed?

Pottery Industry (Council)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the proposal to set up a development council in the pottery industry.

Mr. H. Wilson: At a meeting with both sides of the industry on 12th December, 1950, I suggested the general lines of a new approach to this problem. The details are now being worked out within my Department, and officials will discuss them with the industry as soon as possible.

Mr. Davies: Could my right hon. Friend say when he hopes to be able to give us a decision on this matter?

Mr. Wilson: As soon as the details are a little further worked out. It is a question of how long the discussions will take with the two sides of the industry.

Mr. McCorquodale: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite sure that both sides of the industry are carried forward together in this matter?

Mr. Wilson: I met both sides of the industry together, and I indicated the general lines of what I thought would be a possible solution. Our intention is to discuss these arrangements with both sides.

Glass Containers (Salvage)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to salvage glass bottles.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Government appealed in 1948 to the public for their help in salvaging glass containers. Since that date, supplies of new bottles have improved considerably, and in some cases reconditioned bottles cost as much, or more than, new ones. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that many traders

are themselves organising the salvage of glass bottles used for their own products.

Mr. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many types of bottles are not being salvaged in that way at all? Does he not think that the great shortage of bottles that occurred in the last war makes it advisable to maintain glass stocks?

Mr. Wilson: I understand that the prospects of future supplies of new, ordinary glass bottles are very good indeed.

Rubber

Mr. Bossom: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether rubber is listed as a munition of war.

Mr. H. Wilson: If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring to Group 17 of the Export Control Order, the answer is "No, Sir."

Mr. Bossom: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the importance of rubber as a munition of war has increased? If he is, why does he allow so much to go into China as is going there now?

Mr. Wilson: There is a large number of items of strategic importance, which are not on the list referred to in the Question and which are rigidly controlled at the present time. As far as rubber is concerned, we are watching the purchases of Eastern European countries and of China. If necessary, controls could be imposed, but there has been no question of that yet.

PRISON LABOUR

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken, as a result of the recent inter-Departmental discussions, to make more efficient use of prison labour.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): As a result of the inter-Departmental discussions, a directive was issued to the purchasing Departments which should ensure that the prisons, together with other non-profit making institutions, receive a due proportion of Government orders, and that they are given the opportunity to manufacture the widest possible range of the requirements of the Departments.


The Prison Commissioners are now in touch with a number of those Departments in the hope of obtaining orders, which will result in an increased use of the existing prison workshops and possibly also in the opening of workshops for new industries, but it is too early to assess the results of these discussions.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern caused by the information that it takes an able-bodied resident two days to sew one mail bag? Could not this be speeded up?

Mr. Ede: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that information, but it is quite untrue.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain a report on this subject from Soviet Russia, whose experience in this regard is so much wider than ours?

Mr. George Jeger: Does this mean that inmates of prisons may in future be paid such wages as will enable them to keep up their National Insurance contributions?

Mr. Ede: No. Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Recruitment, London (Rewards)

Mr. Black: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rewards of 30s. free of tax have been claimed for the introduction of recruits for the Metropolitan Police in accordance with the offer made in August last by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Ede: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that 160 claims were received and that rewards have been paid in the 36 cases in which recruits were accepted and joined the force. The scheme ended on 31st December, 1950.

Mr. Black: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this kind of scheme is very harmful to the dignity of the police force; and is he aware that it is greatly resented by quite a number of the men concerned?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think that a quite wrong attitude was adopted, but the scheme has been withdrawn.

Enlistment Age

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the maximum age for enlistment in the police.

Mr. Ede: The police regulations provide that a male candidate for appointment to a police force must be under 30 years of age and a woman candidate not over 35 years of age, but I have power, which I exercise in all suitable cases, to approve the appointment of candidates over these ages in special circumstances on the recommendation of the appointing authority.

Mr. Lindsay: In view of the present shortage does the Home Secretary not consider that the age limit might well be raised slightly?

Mr. Ede: Where an appointing authority wishes to appoint a man slightly above the age I give my careful consideration to the matter, but it is, of course, desirable that the average age of the police force should not be too high.

Strength, London

Mr. F. P. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present deficiency in the numbers of the Metropolitan Police Force.

Mr. Ede: Three thousand, eight hundred and eighty-three men and three women.

Mr. Crowder: What action does the Home Secretary propose to take to meet this deficiency? Will he further consider raising the age limit, even if only by a few years?

Mr. Ede: I have already been asked a question today about the age limit, and what I said in reply to that applies to this force as well as to the provincial forces. There has been a steady improvement in the numbers of the force, and I hope that that will continue. We take steps by advertisement, and in other ways, to bring the conditions of employment in this force to the notice of suitable people. I am also glad to say that we are making some advance in the provision of housing, which has been one of the great difficulties in the past.

Mr. Marlowe: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate that answer because I understood that he was responsible only for the Metropolitan Police Force? Does he accept responsibility for the provincial forces as well?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. The Question is directed to the Metropolitan Police Force.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman's answer referred to provincial forces.

Mr. Ede: I hope I can remove any misapprehension. I was asked by an hon. Member a Question about police forces generally, and I gave an answer. I wanted to apply that answer to the circumstances of the Metropolitan Police Force without repeating it in detail.

Identity Cards

Mr. Hollis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has given to the Metropolitan Police to require that citizens must produce their identity cards on demand.

Mr. Ede: Section 6 (4) of the National Registration Act, 1939, requires the holder of an identity card to produce it on the demand of a police constable in uniform. It is not for me to instruct the police as to the circumstances in which this power should be used: it must be left to their reasonable discretion.

Mr. Hollis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a gentleman recently refused to produce his card on the grounds that he was a member of what he called "The Liberal Party and all that."? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Act of 1950 has made no difference to the obligation under the Act of 1939?

Mr. Ede: This applies quite irrespective of political allegiance.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what "all that" means?

Mr. Ede: It was not my phrase.

CIVIL DEFENCE (RECRUITMENT)

Mr. Black: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many volunteers have been enrolled to the nearest convenient date for the Civil Defence services; and how many more

volunteers are needed to bring these services up to strength.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): At the end of January the number of volunteers in England and Wales was, in round figures: 110,000 in the Civil Defence Corps, 9,000 in the Auxiliary Fire Service, and 12,000 in the National Hospital Service Reserve, making a total of about 131,000. To bring the services up to their provisional peace-time establishment we require 360,000 more in the Civil Defence Corps, 51,000 more in the Auxiliary Fire Service, and 18,000 more in the National Hospital Service Reserve.

Mr. Black: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present rate of recruiting; and, on the basis of the present rate of recruiting, is it possible to form any estimate of when the service will reach full strength?

Mr. de Freitas: The present rate is at about 12,000 a month, and I am certainly not satisfied with it. I hope it will increase, and I therefore should not like to make an estimate because any estimate would be based on the present figures.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many prospective volunteers gave full-time service during the war and are discouraged by the knowledge that they would have to go through a whole series of elementary classes in Civil Defence? It is having a very deleterious effect on recruitment.

Mr. de Freitas: That point has been noted, and I hope to make a statement on that aspect of it in a couple of weeks' time.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman also inquire into what happens when these people enlist, as there is a great deal of complaint about the way in which they are treated? Is he aware that they do nothing, that their time is wasted, and will he go into that aspect?

Mr. de Freitas: Certainly.

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the strength of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service on 31st January, 1951; and how many recruits joined the Corps and Fire


Service, respectively, during the month of January.

Mr. de Freitas: In England and Wales during January 11,300 recruits joined the Civil Defence Corps, bringing the strength at the end of the month to 110,200; and 900 recruits joined the Auxiliary Fire Service, bringing the strength at the end of the month to 8,800. I will circulate the detailed figures for the Civil Defence Corps in HANSARD.

Region
Increase during January, 1951
Total strength at 31st January, 1951
Strength per thousand of population


Eastern
…
…
…
1,321
12,160
4·02


Southern
…
…
…
1,233
9,980
3·78


South Eastern
…
…
…
1,128
9,024
3·55


South Western
…
…
…
1,653
10,409
3·46


Northern
…
…
…
725
7,480
2·39


Wales
…
…
…
570
5,868
2·27


Midland
…
…
…
936
9,940
2·26


North Western
…
…
…
1,201
13,949
2·19


North Midland
…
…
…
539
7,382
2·16


London
…
…
…
1,157
17,069
2·03


North Eastern
…
…
…
797
6,893
1·69






11,260
110,154
Average for England and Wales 2·53

CRUELTY CASES (PENALTIES)

Mr. Black: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how far cases of cruelty to children and animals have increased in recent months; and whether he is satisfied that adequate penalties are being imposed to bring home to those concerned the serious character of this class of offence.

Mr. Ede: The average monthly number of persons found guilty in magistrates' courts of cruelty to or neglect of children was 74 in 1949 and 78 in the first 11 months of 1950, and of cruelty to animals 65 and 69. I have no reason to doubt that the maximum penalties prescribed by the law are adequate, but it is not within my province to express an opinion on the adequacy of the penalties imposed by the courts in particular cases.

Mr. Black: Bearing in mind the very grave concern that exists on matters of this kind, can the Home Secretary assure the House that he is keeping this matter under continual observation, and that if

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the grave difficulty to date in getting recruits for the Civil Defence Corps, would the Home Office urgently consider formulating plans for recruiting industrial Civil Defence officers and men?

Mr. de Freitas: The question of industrial Civil Defence is being considered at present, and I expect to make a statement on the matter within a few weeks.

Following are the figures:

any further action does seem to be necessary he will not hesitate to act?

Mr. Ede: I recognise the state of public opinion in the matter, and my observation leads me to the conclusion that it has had some effect on the magistrates' courts. If further action were, in my opinion, called for I would take it. I would remind the hon. Gentleman, who is a magistrate of long experience, that the foundation of liberty in this country is that magistrates are completely free from supervision and dictation by the Executive, and while I remain Home Secretary I shall bear that in mind.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the importance of the prevention of these two evils by early recognition of any suggestion in that direction, and by help and encouragement?

Mr. Ede: I would far sooner see cruelty to children prevented than punish it after it has occurred, and I have, in conjunction with the Salvation Army, enabled that body to start a home in Plymouth at which feckless mothers, while still living


with their families, can get advice and help on the proper way to live in family life.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is it possible for the Home Office, without interfering with the magistrates' discretion, to give them guidance on the principles involved in these cases?

Mr. Ede: I think that they are sufficiently informed on that matter.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of existing uncertainty as to the duty to include in the return of election expenses at a Parliamentary Election expenditure incurred prior to the Dissolution of Parliament, and calculated to advance the interests of a particular candidate, he will introduce legislation to clarify the law on this subject.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am not aware that any amendment of the law in this respect is called for.

Mr. Turton: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to a series of articles that have been written by the Lord President of the Council recommending particular Socialist candidates in the area of London in words such as these:
Trevor Williams Is Your Man.
By the Right Honourable Herbert Morrison, M.P.
I have known Trevor Williams for some years now, and I can promise that if you send him to Parliament you will have a first-class M.P. representing you.

Mr. Ede: I congratulate Mr. Trevor Williams on the advertisement the hon. Gentleman has given him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

U.S.S.R. Citizens

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the main occupations of the 131 citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who are registered with the police in this country.

Mr. Ede: With a few exceptions the citizens of the U.S.S.R. registered with the police in this country are members of the Soviet Trade Delegation or of Soviet agencies.

Deportation Orders

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each year between 1946 and 1950 up to the most convenient date, how many aliens including those who have ben naturalised since the war have been reported to his Department as being undesirable; in how many cases after investigation by the police have they been allowed to remain in this country; and how many deportation orders have been made.

Mr. Ede: Figures showing the number of aliens against whom complaints were made and what number of these complaints were investigated by the police are not available. During the years 1946 to 1950 the courts recommended deportation in 1,036 cases and in 617 of these deportation orders were made. In addition, 1,469 deportation orders were made in cases where there was no recommendation for deportation from a court. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of deportation orders made in each year. There is no power to deport a naturalised citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Cooper: Is the Home Secretary aware of the growing concern at the number of investigations made by officials and police, and is he satisfied with the methods used by his Department in dealing with these cases?

Mr. Ede: I suppose that everything human is capable of improvement, but, so far as I know, the utmost care is being used in these cases, and I am satisfied that substantial justice is done.

Following is the table:


1946
…
…
…
…
290


1947
…
…
…
…
221


1948
…
…
…
…
511


1949
…
…
…
…
537


1950
…
…
…
…
527



…
…
…
…
2,086

BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (NAME)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if consideration will be given to changing the name of Borstal institutions to "corrective training centres" or some other more suitable name.

Mr. Ede: This point has often been considered, but no alternative name that would be generally acceptable has yet been suggested.

ELECTORAL REGISTER (MENTAL DEFICIENCY)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people certified under the Mental Deficiency Act are on the registers of voters.

Mr. Ede: The information asked for is not available.

Mr. Hynd: Resisting the temptation to ask a frivolous supplementary question, may I ask whether, as certification under the Mental Deficiency Act is not a bar to a vote, the Home Secretary does not think that something ought to be done to debar people like that?

Mr. Ede: As I have informed the House on previous occasions, this is one of the matters that is marked for consideration when fresh legislation is considered.

Sir Waldron Smithers: When the Home Secretary does get this information will he add as a footnote: "A number of Members of His Majesty's Government are included"?

CRIME DETECTION (TELEPATHY)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent telepathy is used for the purpose of detecting crimes.

Mr. Ede: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that from time to time persons professing to possess telepathic powers have offered to help the police in the detection of crime, and that the information given by such persons has been examined in the same

way as that of any other person giving information to the police.

Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend give us some information about the visit of a Dutchman to Scotland Yard, who volunteered to help the police in discovering the Stone of Destiny? Will he tell us if the Dutchman was met by the police, if the jemmy which was used to break open the door of Westminster Abbey was inspected by the Dutchman, and what are the results to date?

Mr. Ede: The gentleman in question, whose activities in connection with the Stone were given publicity, not by the police, was one of a number of selected persons who were given facilities to visit Westminster Abbey and examine clues. He was not invited to this country by the police, his expenses have not been met from public funds, and no results have accrued.

Brigadier Thorp: Does the Question mean that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) accepts the taking away of the Stone of Destiny as a crime?

Mr. Mikardo: Would my right hon. Friend tell us to what extent telepathy is used by Ministers in foreseeing and anticipating supplementary questions?

Mr. Ede: Most of the supplementaries are fairly obvious when one studies the Questions.

Mr. Hughes: is not the Home Secretary's answer to my first supplementary question a final proof of the failure of private enterprise?

COMMUNIST ORGANISATIONS

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the public interest he will publish a list of the names of organisations known by his Department to be ancillaries of the Communist Party, or used by the Communist Party as channels for revolutionary activity.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think that this would be in the public interest.

Mr. White: Does not the Home Secretary consider that it is in the interests of the public to know the names of these


bodies which are attempting to entrap and deceive them into thinking that they are non-Communist bodies?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. But if persons looked at the list and did not find the name of a body on it, they would assume that it was all right when it might be all wrong.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (TAXI-CABS)

Mr. F. P. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give authority for the number of taxi-cabs to be increased in the London area during the Festival of Britain.

Mr. Ede: I am advised that there is no statutory limit to the number of taxicabs which may be licensed by the Commissioner to ply for hire in the Metropolitan Police district.

SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Peterborough for improving the school crossing patrols have yet been considered; and if so with what results.

Mr. Ede: As the hon. Member is aware, his suggestions concern the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office and they have been carefully examined by all three Departments and the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner of Police is responsible for the employment of school crossing patrols in the Metropolitan Police area and I have authorised him to increase the number from 500 to 1,050.
As regards the dress and equipment of these patrols, those in London wear a white coat and a black cap and I understand that somewhat similar dress is worn by some patrols outside London, where the local education authority is responsible for them. This dress is considered suitable for the purpose. In addition an authorised sign must be carried. The question of dispensing with the sign has been considered, but it is thought desirable to retain this, as it constitutes

the legal authority for stopping traffic on the road. The Minister of Transport proposes, however, to authorise the experimental use of a smaller sign.

Mr. Nicholls: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the thought given to this suggestion, may I ask him to consider still further standardising the uniform throughout the country, so that we can be sure that all will wear the same sort of uniform?

EMIGRATION (CHILDREN)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been emigrated without their parents since the war.

Mr. Ede: I regret that the information is not available, since the existing statistics do not distinguish children travelling without their parents from those travelling with them.

Mr. Grimond: Does not the Minister feel that his Department should have information on this rather important matter?

Mr. Ede: I am reluctant to collect statistics merely for the sake of collecting them.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give a complete list of the societies engaged in the emigration of children without their parents.

Mr. Ede: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those voluntary societies in England known to my Department to be engaged directly in the emigration of children without their parents. Some of these societies act also as agents for other societies.
Following is the list:
The Australian Catholic Immigration Committee, Dr. Barnardo's Homes, The Big Brother Movement, The Church of England Advisory Council of Empire Settlement, The Fairbridge Society, The National Children's Home and Orphanage, The New Zealand Sheepowners' Acknowledgement of Debt to British Seamen Fund, The Northcote Children's Emigration Fund for Australia, The Overseas League, The Rhodesia Fairbridge Memorial College, The Salvation Army, The Young Christian Workers' Movement and the Young Men's Christian Association.

AFRICAN TERRITORIES (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, on 23rd January, concerning the desirability of closer association between the three Central African territories represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: The reports which I have of the statement made by the Secretary of State at his Press conference at Salisbury on 22nd January indicate that he said that the United Kingdom Government would be happy if the forthcoming conference of officials produced unanimous recommendations; there could, however, be no question of the United Kingdom Government forcing a decision on reluctant people. As was stated in the House on 8th November, the work of the conference will be purely exploratory and will not commit any of the participating Governments to the adoption of any of the proposals formulated by it.

Sir R. Acland: Is the Prime Minister aware that at least one influential organ of opinion circulating in those parts has taken the statement made in Salisbury as a whittling away of the statement of the Secretary of State for Colonies on 8th November, particularly in relation to public discussion and consultation with African opinion? Can he assure the House that there is no such whittling away or any such intention by the Government?

The Prime Minister: There is no change in Government policy in this matter. I cannot be responsible for Press comments.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

County Committees (Report)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has now received the report of the Ryan Committee which inquired into the organisation of his Department in relation to the county agricultural executive committees; and when this will be published.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I have received the report and am arranging for it to be published as soon as practicable. I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to Mr. Ryan and his colleagues on the Committee, particularly the members from outside the Government service, for undertaking this inquiry and for giving so much of their time and attention to it.

Mr. Hurd: Have the recommendations of this Committee been accepted by the Government, and will they require any fresh legislation?

Mr. Williams: There has been no time to reach any conclusions on the recommendations that have been made.

Fowl Pest

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many birds have been ordered to be killed due to fowl pest in Great Britain; and how many birds from pest-infected countries have been imported during this same time.

Mr. T. Williams: The number of birds slaughtered between February, 1947, and the end of 1950 by direction of my Department on account of fowl pest is about 400,000. A record of the number of birds imported into Great Britain from countries where the disease is prevalent is not kept, but about 7,800 tons of fowls, 13,000 tons of geese and ducks and 8,300 tons of turkeys came from such countries during the period. At a conservative estimate, there could not have been less than 9 million birds imported.

Captain Duncan: Are the fowls from Gambia included in that total?

Mr. Williams: I am not aware that there have been any fowls from Gambia.

Captain Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentlemen read the answer given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the House yesterday?

Sir H. Williams: Why is it that the order the right hon. Gentleman made in December on this subject has not yet been presented to Parliament?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.

Mr. Bossom: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish month by month the numbers of birds imported and killed?

Vegetables (Road Transport Charges)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the growers' costs of road transport between the Selsey area and Covent Garden since nationalisation have increased to 2d. a cabbage and from 4d. to 5s. for half a bushel of lettuces; and what steps he is taking on behalf of the horticultural industry to negotiate lower price schedules of road transport charges.

Mr. T. Williams: I am advised that the cost of road transport for the haul stated is 2s. 4½d. per crate of cabbage and 10½d. per bushel box of lettuce, with a minimum charge of 5s. for each collection. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not aware that the existing facilities for negotiation on price schedules for road transport charges are in any way inadequate.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is largely through the incidence of the very heavy road charges that growers are unable to make a profit? Will he not help them to negotiate revised schedules of transport charges?

Mr. Williams: I cannot accept that statement, since the crate or two-bushel box to carry cabbages contains anything between 16 to 26. It does not work out at anything like 2d., unless they are very small indeed.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend explain the very wide divergence between these prices and the prices charged in the shops?

Mr. Williams: The prices referred to in the Question are merely transport charges.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that increases in transport charges of anything from 50 per cent. to 120 per cent. have been placed on the horticultural industry? Will he not make some representations to the Minister of Transport and at least dissuade him from hounding the free transport hauliers out of business?

Mr. Williams: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not accept the charges and allegations made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not apparently aware of the situation, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Rabbits

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are taken to keep down the rabbits in woodlands now under requisition by Government Departments.

Mr. T. Williams: Departments responsible for woodlands are co-operating with my Department, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Land Owners' Association in the county schemes for area rabbit control.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that a number of woodlands in Kent are still under requisition and that no one takes any steps to see that the rabbits are kept down?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Member will bring any particular cases he has in mind to my notice.

Camp Sites, Isle of Sheppey

Mr. Percy Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of good farming land have been taken over for camping sites on the Isle of Sheppey since 1945.

Mr. T. Williams: I regret that I have not the information available.

Land Requisitioning, Essex

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Agriculture what total acreage of land in Essex he proposes to acquire compulsorily under Section 85 of the Agriculture Act, 1947; and how many owners of such land have lodged objections.

Mr. T. Williams: The total acreage of land in Essex of which purchase under Section 85 is proposed or in train is approximately 3,600 acres. There are about 1,000 known owners of this land, of whom about 300 made representations. Of these, 37 have so far appealed to the agricultural land tribunals.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Agriculture when a final decision will be made concerning land in Essex he seeks to acquire compulsorily under Section 85 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and in respect of which objections have been lodged by the owners.

Mr. T. Williams: Out of the 3,600 acres of land in Essex where purchase under Section 85 is proposed, final decisions have been reached on 1,200 acres. On a further 400 acres, the decisions of the agricultural land tribunal are awaited, while on the remaining 2,000 acres, the representations of the owners and occupiers are under consideration, and it is impossible to say when final decisions will be reached.

Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that many of the owners concerned expected their land to be de-requisitioned last year, but were suddenly faced, last summer, with the Minister's demand for compulsory purchase? Is he aware that they are still left in ignorance of what will happen to their land? Cannot he speed up a decision in order to avoid additional delay?

Mr. Williams: It is because we are so careful to give consideration to those who make representations that there has been this delay.

Horses (Shipment from Ireland)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a shipment of 71 horses and other animals sent from Limerick to Birkenhead early in February, of which 18 collapsed, died and were thrown overboard during the sea voyage, three more were found dead on arrival at Birkenhead, seven others had broken legs and other serious injuries and had to be destroyed on arrival, another collapsed and died on the quayside and two goats were found to be dead on arrival; and, in view of the fact that repeated cases of this kind have been brought to his notice, what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence.

Sir William Darling: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in which a number of aged horses were shipped from Limerick to Birkenhead on 3rd February last, which resulted in 18 dying en route, three being found dead on

reaching Birkenhead and eight having to be humanely slaughtered on arrival owing to the injuries they had suffered on the voyage; and whether, in view of the fact that these were horses imported solely for the meat trade, he will take powers to prevent such importations henceforward unless prior satisfaction can be given that the transport, unloading and subsequent slaughter will be carried out with due regard to avoiding unnecessary cruelty.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the cruelty caused to certain horses in transit from Ireland to Birkenhead on 3rd February; and if he will make a statement as to the steps which are being taken to prevent such incidents in the future.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in which a number of aged horses being shipped from Limerick to Birkenhead in the early part of this month suffered severe injuries, resulting in their death in consequence of their infirmity and the unsatisfactory conditions of their accommodation, and that a further number had to be slaughtered on arrival as a result of the extensive bruising and exhaustion from which they were suffering; and whether he will take steps to review the regulations relating to the transport of horses in merchant vessels, with a view to ensuring that such extensive and unnecessary cruelty shall be avoided.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) on 19th February.

Mr. Freeman: I have seen that answer, but is it not a fact that in these cases my right hon. Friend informed me that these journeys would not take place if the weather was bad? Is it not a fact that gale warnings were given on the day previous to the sailing of the vessel and That the vessel was delayed for four hours? Is he aware that I have a signed statement by the captain saying that he delayed his vessel for six hours in the Shannon and that the vessel took four days and nights to do the journey from Ireland? Is he further aware that at this time of the year the weather is always bad?

Mr. Speaker: This is giving a lot of information and not asking for it.

Mr. Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a public inquiry?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend has suggested that repeated cases of this kind have been brought to my notice. This is the first case affecting imported horses that has been reported. I understand that the "Clarina" was inspected before sailing by Irish Government officials, who certified that the horses were fit to work and to travel and that the fittings of the vessel were up to their usual standards. The large number of casualties on this voyage is attributed to the exceptionally heavy weather experienced.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that while we are continuing to import horses for slaughter from Ireland, we are also exporting horses for slaughter in Belgium? Should we not cut down these exports and reduce the overall volume of this traffic?

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member is in error. We are not exporting horses for slaughter to Belgium.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Tom Tweed, of Manchester, the man to whom most of these unfortunate animals are consigned, is a man with an extremely bad record? He has at one time or another received a sentence of three years' imprisonment, has been fined £2,000, has had his butcher's licence revoked and has been fined for cruelty to animals. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the regulations are adequate to ensure safe transportation of these animals and to prevent them falling into the hands of someone like Mr. Tweed when they arrive?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend knows much more about this person than I do. I said in my original reply, on 19th February, that I am considering whether to make an order under the Diseases of Animals Acts for the better protection of horses during their transit to this country, but hon. Members will appreciate that I will have to consult both the Eire Government and the Government of Northern Ireland.

Sir R. Ross: Is the Minister not aware that the horses to which these Questions

refer came from Eire and were shipped under the sovereignty of the Irish Republic? [Laughter.] What is funny about that? No horses which suffered in this way were shipped from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all people of goodwill in this country are looking to him to prevent such atrocities?

Mr. Williams: The House will be aware that I cannot prevent atrocities of this kind if the regulations are made by the Irish Republic. I have already said that we are looking round the situation to see whether or not anything can be done, but we are not responsible for any kind of suffering.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is it not quite clear, whatever the record of this gentleman in Manchester or of Eire in relation to these unfortunate animals being shipped in these circumstances, that this ship should not have been permitted to sail in view of the weather report? Is not that the whole point?

Mr. Williams: It is not the responsibility of the British Government to decide whether or not the boat should sail.

Mr. Poole: Is it not a fact that the subsequent veterinary examination revealed that many of these horses were knocked down and trampled to death, and will my right hon. Friend, in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, inquire whether there was correct supervision on this vessel, which, after all, does sail under the authority of the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Williams: I shall be very happy to consult with my right hon. Friend, because I am just as anxious as anyone to prevent any unnecessary suffering anywhere.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot proceed any further with this matter.

FORESTRY COTTAGES, LYNDHURST

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Agriculture for what purpose the four cottages at Clay Hill, Lyndhurst, are being built by the


Forestry Commission; and whether it is intended that they shall be tied cottages.

Mr. T. Williams: The cottages are being built for Forestry Commission employees and will be either let on a tenancy basis or occupied rent free as part of the employees' emoluments.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the fact that many landlords in the New Forest are wanting to build cottages, why have the Forestry Commission, which is only a small section, thought it right to build four cottages, which must mean that many other sections of the agricultural community cannot have any cottages?

Mr. Williams: That bears no relation to the Question on the Order Paper.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Why should the Minister consider himself entitled to build four tied cottages when no landlord in the area is allowed to build one?

Mr. Williams: We build cottages where we happen to need them.

Mr. Baldwin: If the men occupying these cottages lose their jobs with the Forestry Commission, will they have to give up the cottages?

Mr. Williams: That is a purely hypothetical question.

SUPREME COMMANDER, ATLANTIC

Mr. Churchill: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the appointment of a Supreme Sea Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The North Atlantic Treaty Defence Committee have agreed that there should be a Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and that he should be an American. An American officer has already been nominated for this appointment, and it is expected that an announcement will be made on this matter very shortly.

Mr. Churchill: Were there no British admirals capable of discharging these functions; does not Great Britain lie at the very key of all communications across

the Atlantic with Europe; are not the sea approaches to our island in the event of submarine attack vital to our life; and how is it, with our experience, which is longer and wider than that of any other country, and when we have all agreed with so much pleasure that General Eisenhower should command the Armed Forces on land, that we should have resigned any claim that we may be thought to have, to the command of the sea on the Atlantic?

The Prime Minister: In an organisation of a number of Powers, as in the North Atlantic Treaty organisation, an appointment is made by those Powers. No Power has an absolute right to dictate its views as to any appointment. I understand that the proposition that an American admiral should be appointed was generally acceptable.

Mr. Churchill: Does this not argue a great decline in our influence and in the esteem in which we are held by other countries with whom we are in the most friendly relations? Did the right hon. Gentleman make any effort to put our claims forward in a sober and earnest fashion, or did he simply accept the fact that we are to be brushed out of the way in this matter which, of all others, apart altogether from history and tradition, is vital to our existence?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: Hon. Members must give me a moment to get up; I am perfectly prepared to answer. This matter was, naturally, very fully discussed, but I say again that this is a matter for agreement. The general conclusion was that this was the best appointment. I cannot at the moment say whether there was an elaborate discussion or not, but in any international organisation of this kind, of a number of—

Mr. John Hay: Where is British leadership?

Mr. James Hudson: Not over there, on the other side of the House.

The Prime Minister: In an organisation of a number of countries, it is not possible for one country to insist on its right to some particular office. It is a matter for discussion.

Mr. Churchill: It was possible, anyhow, not very long ago, for one country to sink 525 German U-boats compared with 174 by the United States. No one is going to argue that I am hostile to the United States, but I do not think that our country ought to have fallen so far into walks of humility.

Mr. John Hynd: Without endorsing what the Leader of the Opposition has Said about the question of substantiating our particular claim, or the credit of any country, or any prior rights of any country in any field, does the Prime Minister not consider that there is a very important psychological question to be considered here, a question which ought to be appreciated by the Americans as much as by ourselves? The world at large is beginning to think that there is something wrong when the Americans have leadership of the Atlantic Forces on land, leadership of the Korean Forces and now, presumably, are to have leadership of yet another Force. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of any claim that any individual American may have, but this is a matter of collective force and world psychology. Will the Prime Minister look into it?

Mr. Somerset de Chair: If it is too late to make any further suggestions about the appointment of a supreme Allied naval commander, will the Prime Minister see that the claims of the British Commonwealth to hold the appointment of Allied air commander are considered, when this matter comes up?

Mr. J. Hudson: Will the Prime Minister take into account that as we have committed ourselves to the full principle of collective arrangements we cannot now risk the development of illfeeling with America when these arrangements are carried out?

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this matter is finally settled or whether he will, in view, I think, of the widespread feeling in the House, make a further appeal to the United States to consider this matter in all friendship and loyal feelings of comradeship? As the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has said, on the land we welcomed General Eisenhower; the Americans alone have the atomic bomb, which covers a great part of the air, but

here, in this question which is absolutely vital to this island, will he not ask them to give it further consideration? I am only asking that the Prime Minister should believe that they are very ready to treat loyal Allies with all fairness and generosity.

The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the matter. I cannot say more than that. As I understand it, they have selected the admiral who seems most suitable for this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] The name I cannot say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are 'they'"?] "They" are the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The name has not yet been announced. I will take into full consideration everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, and will look into the matter.

Sir H. Williams: Who represented us?

Mr. Churchill: It is late in the day for the Prime Minister of this country to look into the matter. Might I ask him whether he was not consulted beforehand?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, the matter has been very very fully considered. I am saying that I will reconsider it and look into it.

Mr. Churchill: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will look into it again and see what can be done.

Captain Ryder: Before this matter is finally decided, can we have a chance to debate the nature of this appointment? To whom is this man to be responsible? What is to be the extent of his command, and the position of the Commanders-in-Chief of the Home Fleet and Coastal Command? Can we have an assurance that our extensive merchant fleet will not pass out of British control?

The Prime Minister: All these matters will be properly covered when the details of the appointment are announced.

Mr. Thurtle: Has not the Leader of the Opposition, by raising this issue, implied lack of faith in our great American allies—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and is it not deplorable that there should be divisions between America and ourselves over a point like this?

Mr. Collick: May I ask the Prime Minister whether any British admiral was nominated for this position?

Mr. Boothby: The Prime Minister said just now that he understood that the Americans had selected an admiral whom they considered most suitable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would like an assurance that that answer did not imply that we ourselves had no say in the choice or the selection at all, because that implication seemed to give rise to the answer which he gave.

The Prime Minister: Of course we had our say.

Mr. Chetwynd: In regard to the land Forces, was it not obviously a case of the best man for the job, and will not my right hon. Friend make it clear that the appointment of a naval commander will also be on that principle—the best man for the job, regardless of nationality?

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that his apparent aloofness this afternoon can only give the impression that he has never taken a personal interest in this matter? Will he give an assurance that he will make this his personal business and do his best to ensure that Great Britain is properly represented?

Sir R. Acland: Is it not a little strange that a statesman who so loudly proclaims his belief in European unity should protest so violently when a decision with which he disagrees is reached by a group of nations, many of them European?

RAILWAYS WAGES CLAIM (NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Churchill: I have a Question, of which I have given him private notice, to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the railway situation. I assure him that if it is inconvenient to make a statement at the present moment, we will gladly wait until tomorrow morning.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I regret to state that the negotiations between the Railway Executive and the railway trade unions have not proved successful in reaching a settlement. I

am gratified to find, however, that both sides are most appreciative of the amicable spirit that has animated these discussions. At the request of the trade unions, I had an interview with them this morning when they reported the position. I have also had a talk with the Railway Executive, but I am not yet in a position to report the result of these discussions.

Mr. J. Hynd: Can the Minister explain to the House why the railwaymen should be expected to bear the economic burden of running the railways any more than the employees of the air corporations are expected to carry the subsidies on those corporations?

Mr. Bevan: I think that my hon. Friend, when he hears the ultimate outcome of the discussions, will find that we have not lost sight of that factor.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Can the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Bill; and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
TUESDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY—Supply (4th allotted Day); Committee stage of the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, Vote on Account, 1951–52; Debate on the shortage of Tinplate and other materials for food preservation and transport, until 7 p.m. and afterwards, a debate on the situation in Malaya.
WEDNESDAY, 28TH FEBRUARY—Committee and remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation (Scotland) Bill; and Committee stage of the Overseas Resources Development Bill.
THURSDAY, 1ST MARCH—Committee and, if possible, remaining stages of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Bill. In view of the urgency of this Bill, the Government hope that it will be possible to complete all stages next week.
FRIDAY, 2ND MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
If there is an opportunity during the week, further progress will be made with the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Bill.

Miss Irene Ward: In view of the importance of international affairs at the moment, could the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a senior Minister or the Minister of State to answer questions about foreign affairs until the return of the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Morrison: I understood that the Minister of State had answered some of the Foreign Office Questions and that others had been answered by the Under-Secretary. If that is so, I do not think that is unreasonable.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that recently Private Members' Bills have not been available until the very last moment and it has been impossible to put down Amendments or Motions in relation to them? Will he make necessary recommendations about this? Secondly, has he observed a Motion in my name on the Order Paper. No one was called to speak for it in the two-day debate last week. Can he find time for discussion of the question of the peace of the world and of peace generally?
[That this House affirms its earnest desire that His Majesty's Government should continue to seek to secure the peace of the world, and in particular to spare no effort to prevent a widening of the conflict in Asia; should maintain its policy of preserving democracy with a view to resisting the resurgence of totalitarianism in Western Germany and, following their initiative at the Colombo Conference, should make a forthright reaffirmation of their desire in consultation with the great Powers to lead in a policy of world cooperation for the development of those vast areas, whose inhabitants suffer from poverty, malnutrition and disease, so that the resources of the world now being so tragically expended in an arms race may be devoted, without distinction of race, colour or religious or political creed, to the raising of the standard of living of all mankind.]

Mr. Morrison: I will think about that. One must be careful about the principle

that if hon. Members have Motions down they had better be heard. Otherwise, it would serve as an incitement to put Motions down and that might not always be convenient. However, I will keep the point in mind. The first point, I suggest with great respect, is one in respect of not only Private Members' Motions but also Private Members' Bills. Some of them have been put on the Order Paper or presented very late, with the consequence that it is exceedingly difficult for back benchers and others concerned to make up their minds about them. If hon. Members concerned with Private Members' Motions or Bills would appreciate that there is a responsibility upon them, as is there upon the Government, to present their matters in time for them to he considered, I am sure that everybody would be much obliged.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Matrimonial Causes Bill was introduced on 17th November and is down for Second Reading on 9th March and that it has not yet been printed despite the fact that apparently many of our constituents have been informed of its contents? Will he make representations to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) to get her Bill printed?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that will be noted, but this is a matter which affects both sides of the House.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend make any announcement about the dates of the Easter Recess and the Budget?

Mr. Morrison: We have only just come back from one Recess. Another Recess sounds a long way off to me.

Mr. Michael Astor: Can the Lord President tell the House whether the B.B.C. Report is likely to be debated before the House rises for the Easter Recess?

Mr. Morrison: I should not think that there was a great hurry about that. The Charter runs to the end of the year. Folks outside the House will want to think and talk about it which they are doing. The Government, naturally, want to consider it with great care. I would ask that we should not be pushed too hard about it just now, because we are not ready.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, whatever may be the urgency of Members printing their Private Bills well in advance, that consideration applies even more strongly to the Government, and that we shall debate on Second Reading next Monday an extremely important Bill which was only available to hon. Members yesterday?

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate that, but, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that we are working under conditions of some emergency in these matters. I should not defend this as a classical instance of the right way to do it, but I think that it is legitimate in the circumstances of this case.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the attention of the Lord President of the Council been drawn to a Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), myself and very many hon. Members about old age pensions. Can he hold out any hope of an early debate on it?

[That this House urges His Majesty's Government to give early consideration to the need for improving the position of old-age and similar pensioners; to immediately relate all insurance benefits to the assumptions and principles of the Social Insurance and Allied Services Report, 1942; to ensure that arrangements be made to increase payments above the minimum scales, these to fluctuate with changes in the cost of living and any other reasonable expenditure for which provision is not made in the index; and to amend the National Assistance Board Regulations in accordance with the people's needs.]

Mr. Morrison: I do not see the probability of that at the moment.

Mr. John MacLeod: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if time can be found for the Motion standing in my name and the name of other hon. Members about the deplorable state of roads in the Highlands in view of the strategic significance of that region:

[That this House deplores the condition of the roads throughout the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, which gravely hinders the economic development of agriculture, forestry, fishing, industry and

tourism; and calls upon His Majesty's Government to undertake the immediate reconstruction of the road system in that region, especially in view of its strategic significance.

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that the Scottish Estimates will be debated in Supply in due course, and that that would be a perfectly relevant matter to bring up.

Mr. Osborne: With regard to Tuesday's business, can the Leader of the House give a little more time for discussion of the question of tinplate? Those of us who have canning factories in our constituencies are faced with problems of unemployment arising from the present shortage, and we should like more time to discuss it.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member has overlooked the constitutional proprieties. This is Opposition time. It is Supply, and it is, of course, for the Opposition Front Bench to make their own decision as to how it should be used. The hon. Member is complaining to the wrong man. I will tell him privately at whom he should "have a go."

Mr. Ellis Smith: We have rights under Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, but I do not wish to take advantage of them without your advice. In regard to the railway dispute, we are drifting into a very serious situation. We welcome the continuation of negotiations and hope that they will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, but, if there is not a settlement, it would be wrong if Parliament adjourned this weekend without having an opportunity of considering the matter. Between now and this evening or tomorrow morning the authorities of the House should be giving consideration to this great matter of public importance so that the people outside may see that Parliament is interested and desires to seek a way out.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot arrange that, I am afraid. The hon. Member must do what he likes tomorrow. Private Bills will be taken tomorrow, and I cannot help him in that situation. I think the hon. Member knows that one cannot have a Motion of definite urgent importance on Friday, and it is obvious that it cannot be moved today in view of the situation. Therefore, there is nothing to be done at the moment. I am powerless.

Mr. Smith: That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker. As tomorrow is Friday, it will mean that the House will adjourn, and, if the negotiations do not reach a satisfactory conclusion, that will have a very serious effect in the country. However, I do not want to press the matter now.

Mr. Speaker: Let us hope for the best, anyhow. There will be no need to say anything tomorrow if, by some good chance, this matter is reasonably settled.

Mr. Collick: That is the hope of those of us who are specially interested in the matter.

Mr. Speaker: That is what we all hope.

Orders of the Day — SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 13th February.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

New Clause.—(REGISTER OF PURCHASE, SALE, &C.)

(1) From and after the commencement of this Act every person dealing in salmon or trout, whether by wholesale or retail, shall keep or cause to be kept a register, in the prescribed form, of all purchases, receipts, sales, and disposals in any manner, of salmon or trout by him, and shall enter or cause to be entered in such register forthwith the prescribed particulars (which shall not include any particulars as to price) of such purchases, receipts, sales and disposals.

(2) Any person authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State, and any constable may inspect any register kept in pursuance of this section; and it shall be the duty of the dealer and of every person keeping such register to produce for inspection by such authorised person or constable such register, and also all salmon and trout on the premises, together with all invoices, consignment notes, receipts and other documents (including copies thereof where the originals are not available) which may be required to verify any entry in such register, and to allow such authorised person or constable to take copies of such register or documents or extracts therefrom.

(3) Any person dealing in salmon or trout, whether by wholesale or retail, who fails to comply with any provision of this section, and any person who obstructs any person entitled under this section to inspect any register or document in the making of such inspection, or who wilfully or negligently makes or causes to he made in such register any entry which is false or misleading in any material particular, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

(4) For the purposes of this section:

(a) the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State.
(b) a demand for inspection of a register or other document shall be deemed to have been duly made to the person dealing in salmon or trout if such demand is made verbally on the premises of such person to any agent, employee, servant or member of the family of such person thereon.—[Mr. Gage.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Gage: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the Clause is to make an attack upon the market which has


existed for the sale of poached fish. If hon. Members will look at the Clause—I am sorry to say that it is rather long—they will see that the means by which it is intended that the attack shall be carried out is, first of all, to provide a register which has to be kept by persons who deal in salmon or trout.
It would have been simpler if the Clause of my right hon. Friend relating to licences granted to dealers had been accepted, for then this Clause would have been easier to administer. However, I have drafted it in such a way as to overcome that difficulty and have described these people as persons dealing in salmon or trout. The register which under this Clause will have to be kept by the dealers is one which can be inspected from time of time by any police officer. The last part of the Clause provides that it shall be an offence for any person to give false information upon that register.
We have been told repeatedly that the object of this Bill is to prevent large scale commercial poaching. In those circumstances I have no doubt that the only way to prevent it is to try to get at the markets which undoubtedly exist for such fish when they are poached. I do not believe that by merely increasing the penalities for poaching we shall ever eradicate it, and I do not think for a second that by dealing with the matter in that way we are going the right way to protect the salmon and trout in our rivers. The proper way to do it is to get at the places which are supplied by the poacher. That has been our experience in Northern Ireland, where we have found that the only way to stop poaching on this scale is to make all dealers keep a register which can be inspected by the police from time to time.
I have tried to find out from the appropriate departments in Northern Ireland how this matter works over there, and I have some valuable information on the subject. I have been given the views of one of the police officers who was a member of the small committee which advised the Northern Ireland Home Office upon this matter. What he said is exceedingly instructive. Here perhaps I should tell the Committee that there is one thing on which he is very insistent, and with which we shall all agree, that the police should not be used as game

keepers for the protection of private rights. The police are there to enforce the law as it is, and unless there is a provision like that, it makes it exceedingly difficult to enforce the law without appearing to act as game keepers. My correspondent says:
There is no doubt that the provisions of Section 3 of the 1928 Game Act "—
which is a Northern Ireland Act—
when enforced by the police under the provision of Section 6 of the same Act, have brought the illegal sale of game under control.
That was first provided in an exactly similar Clause to this designed to prevent the poaching of game—
The clearest illustration of this is, I think, the fact that the recent Wild Bird Protection (Amending) Act, 1950, has extended the register to the sale of wild birds, and powers have been given to the police to enforce the new Act on the lines of the 1928 Game Act. We did have difficulty over wild birds when we had not the powers to enforce the law adequately,"—
because there was at one time indiscriminate slaughter of wild birds for the purpose of selling them to dealers as food—
but I believe the new amending Act will put an end to the heavy slaughter which has been going on. The 1928 Fishery Act, Sections 5, 7 and 13 give the police practically identical control and powers for salmon and trout. Since that Act came into force, I cannot recall any suggestion of poaching on a large commercial scale in Northern Ireland.
There we have the views of an experienced police officer whose duty it has been to deal with this matter and he gives it as his opinion that the way to stop large-scale commercial poaching is not by increasing the fines, and so forth, but to get at the markets to which the fish is sent. The Home Office there endorse this view, and say that since they have had this Act they have been able to prevent this kind of poaching. The way in which it works is that a police officer from time to time inspects the register, gets to know the sources from which people are obtaining fish and whether there are any large illegal sales to such people.
I know quite well that the objection which will be made to this Clause is that there is not a similar Clause for England, and that in view of the thin dividing line between Scotland and England, it would not be easy to enforce it in regard to fish sold in this country. I think there is a fallacy in that argument, because any-


one who has had to deal with criminals of any kind will know that when a thing has been stolen or taken illegally, their first objective is to get rid of it as quickly as possible.
Except perhaps on the Tweed or some of the more southern rivers of Scotland, I do not think that the actual poachers of the fish are the people who sell it eventually to centres in England. One can be fairly certain that it goes through several hands. Indeed, the Committee might be surprised at the respectability of many of the people through whose hands this kind of trade passes. The only way to prevent that is to make it difficult and dangerous for these people, who can buy it without risk to themselves at present. I am quite certain that the experience in. Scotland will be the same as the experience of Northern Ireland.
We had no doubt that our game and fish were being poached on a commercial scale not for sale in the North of Ireland but for sale in England. We also found that the person who had contacts in England went through an intermediary in Northern Ireland to whom that Section of the Act applied. In that way this was stopped. I am certain it will be the same in Scotland, for there are large centres in that country which might well provide a ready sale of fish of this nature.

Mr. Snadden: Would the effect of this Clause be that hotel keepers who might be living in a black market area, would be compelled to keep registers?

Mr. Gage: As the Clause is drafted, I do not think so. It would be much better if we could devise a Clause by which hotel keepers had to do so, but I had of necessity to put in "any person dealing in salmon or trout." The Lord Advocate will be able to advise on that point, but I do not think that would cover hotel keepers. The misfortune here is that the complementary Clause in regard to the licence for dealers in game which was moved by my right hon. Friend, would have made this quite simple. In those circumstances the hotel which wanted game would have needed such a licence. However, as that Clause was not accepted, I have had to draft mine in this way.
It is a fallacy to say that everything which is illegally poached in Scotland naturally goes to England. I understand that there was a case of burglary quite recently where the object which was stolen avowedly went to Scotland, and it may well be that the right hon. Gentleman does not take the right view in thinking that all this fish goes to England. But whether it does or not, the Clause will provide a protection against that. If there is not an analogous Section in the English Act, then Scotland is setting a very good example to England. We may hope that England will fall into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland in this respect, provided it works efficaciously. I have no doubt whatever that the Bill without a Clause such as this in it will not achieve its object, and in those circumstances I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to accept the Clause.

Mr. Boothby: I only want to say one word about the Clause, and it is not a very favourable word. Here we have a proposal for a whole lot of new restrictions, new lists, new licences—

Mr. Gage: No licences

Mr. Boothby: Yes—new licences, new penalties, new forms to be filled up, lists of purchases, receipts and sales and of the disposal of this, that, and all the rest. I imagined that the intention behind the Bill was to try to put a stop to the wholesale poaching now going on in the rivers of Scotland, but not to impose a new penal code fortified by an immense mass of regulations, licences, forms to be filled in, and heaven knows what else. Before it is finished, this country will sink under licences and forms and all these things that have to be filled up. Some of us in the House—I do not care from which side—must begin to protest against any more forms being filled up and any more penalties being imposed, otherwise this country will become almost uninhabitable. I strongly oppose the Clause and hope that the Lord Advocate will resist it.

Mr. Gage: How will the country sink because a person who deals in game has to enter his sales in a book?

Mr. Boothby: There is quite enough entering to be done without adding this particular additional entry. I do not honestly think that it will do anything further to achieve our objective in the Bill,


which is to stop wholesale commercial poaching.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), has indicated that the adoption of the Clause would result in a whole lot of orders, forms to be filled in, and so on. That is a difficulty which arises directly from the fact, which many of us on this side have tried to force upon the Committee as one of the weaknesses of the Bill, that the right to fish for salmon is under private enterprise and is privately owned. The solution of the difficulty which faces the hon. Member is the nationalisation of these rights. He refuses to face that difficulty and opposes this attempt of his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), to strengthen the Bill, by riding off on the criticisms which he made—

Mr. Boothby: Why should it be more difficult for a poacher to poach a nationalised river than a private one? The salmon are just the same. There is no difference.

Mr. Rankin: That argument was fully met in an earlier debate on the Bill. I do not want to cast any reflection on the hon. Member, because I do not think he was present at the time, but it was pointed out that if there was a sense of national ownership, then from that would develop a sense of national protection, and that—

Mr. Boothby: Like the railways.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member must not seek to bring me into conflict with the Chair.

Commander Galbraith: rose—

Mr. Rankin: I am not giving way, because I only want to say, very shortly, a word of support for the Clause. I welcome from the Opposition this attempt to regulate, to control and to plan this fishing. It is the sign of a developing consciousness, which we want to encourage, and we hope that it will develop along major lines and not along minor lines. In the attempts that have been made to strengthen the Bill, we have been met with the challenge that so far as

one or two suggested Clauses at any rate were concerned, they were outside the scope of the Bill. We accepted that criticism, but in this instance I think that my right hon. Friend would agree that the Clause at least comes within the scope of the Bill and for that reason, cannot be neglected.
The chief argument which occurs to me is that if the Clause were added to the Bill, it would mean the possibility of more salmon coming into the homes of the ordinary people. At present the only method whereby the ordinary person has a chance of getting salmon is out of a tin. For the great majority of my constituents, when it does come it comes out of a tin—and then it is Grade 3—it is dog fish, and not salmon at all. The acceptance of the Clause would, I hope, result in a greater chance for the ordinary person to share in the spoils of the rich.

Mr. Spence: I support the Clause and I ask the Secretary of State to give it very careful consideration before he makes up his mind to throw it out. I do not know which way his mind may be going, but I beg of him to look at the record of poaching in Ireland before and after the institution of the regulations referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage). There is no doubt that the introduction of those regulations, which keeps a check on the sale of salmon, either at the wholesale or retail stage, has had the effect of cutting out the black marketeer and making him liable to prosecution. The black marketeer is more worthy of punishment than is the poacher, because he is the man who provides the incentive for the poacher to take salmon illegally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), referred to the additional forms and regulations that might be involved, but the honest man in the wholesale or retail business already keeps such records.

Mr. Boothby: He cannot do anything else.

Mr. Spence: Therefore, the man we want to get after is the dishonest man, and all we need is an enabling Clause to allow us to stamp out the black market and to make the Bill fulfil the purpose for which it was drafted.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby). I believe this is a step towards the police State in the villages. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), usually exercises meticulous care in drafting new Clauses, but I suggest that this is rather wide. For example, it states:
Any person dealing in salmon or trout.
That does not define whether the salmon is in tins or not. If he is a person dealing in tinned salmon—

Mr. Gage: The hon. Member is wrong. This refers to people "dealing in salmon or trout" and if it had included tinned salmon it would have said so.

Mr. Hughes: It is loosely worded. I could not understand why the hon. Member could not define what kind of salmon he means. Under this Bill the local policeman will be able to deal with unfortunate people who may have tinned salmon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The middleman may be a small shopkeeper. In my constituency he may be the local postmaster and he is to be called upon to keep
invoices, consignment notes, receipts and other documents (including copies thereof where the originals are not available).
I wonder that we did not have the birth certificates and marriage lines as well. This will impose an unnecessary amount of clerical work upon people who are regarded as dealers. If we want to track down the illegal poacher it would be far cheaper, instead of using all this clerical work, to employ the expert in telepathy.

Brigadier Thorp: I want to support the new Clause. The hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) seemed to be supporting the "legal" black marketeer and last week, or the week before, he was supporting the "legal" poacher. What my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) said just now about registers is perfectly true. Those who deal in salmon naturally keep books showing what salmon they buy or sell, but people dealing in the black market do not keep such books and we want to make certain if such people are breaking the law.
In conclusion I must make my usual remark that as the Clause is drafted—and

I hope it will be accepted by the Government—on Report Stage I shall have to put down an Amendment that this does not apply to that part of the River Tweed outwith Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: I think the aim and purpose of this Clause is very good. It follows more or less the line taken by the Maconochie Committee—

Mr. James Stuart: But the hon. Member did not support the Amendment in favour of the Report of Maconochie Committee which I moved on the first occasion.

Mr. Ross: I think the right hon. Member might wait until I have finished speaking before he presumes to discover whether I am going to support the new Clause. 1 feel that the purpose is good but to my mind it does not go anywhere near far enough. It still leaves wide open the door for the black marketeer. I am not convinced that commercially poached fish goes through any wholesaler or retailer. When one considers the parts of Scotland in which this practice has been extended over the years, one finds there are many suitable hotels with a nice, handy, ever open back door—and clubs also—ready to receive the poacher. That is not only so in the country districts, but in the cities as well, and probably the commercial markets are in the cities. It is not necessary to come to England.
If we take no action at all to stop the black marketeer getting directly at his markets in the hotels this proposed new Clause would create a lot of work but to no purpose. I would not object to that clerical work like the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) if it were effective. I am sorry he has delayed his interest in this Bill. He declared his opposition to new penalties and so on. I wish he had been here earlier.

Mr. Boothby: I was here the whole time on the last occasion, from first to last.

Mr. Ross: That may be true of the last occasion but this is the third day and we did not have the benefit of the hon. Member's views on matters relating to poachers as a whole. As the proposed new Clause fails to get at the black marketeer, which to my mind is the. source of this commercial poaching, I do, not think it is really worth having.

Mr. Gage: Would the hon. Member agree to support the new Clause if I looked into the complaint he has made and considered whether to add on the Report stage, "and hotel keepers"?

Mr. Ross: I will look at that, yes.

Mr. Pryde: I have considerable sympathy with the new Clause and I am shocked at the amount of opposition among the representatives of the North of Scotland because we were told stories of railway wagons full of poached salmon from the North but now that we have the Bill we find it is aimed at the River Tweed where such conditions do not obtain.
A great Irishman once told me that Englishmen were always bound to be the dominant race of the four because, he said, they set the Gael to fight the Gael and we have been doing that throughout the Bill. With the support of representatives of North Ireland. the Welsh and the Scots, I am sure I should have got my way and the Bill would have been dropped because no one wants it, except for a few Edinburgh drapers, absentee landlords, certain expatriated Englishmen who have fallen down on their job, and descendants of William the Conqueror. I suggest that the Committee could be employed listening to the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland.
To the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), I say the Clause emanates from a situation different from that in Scotland. In Ireland there is no private ownership of fishing and, as far as this Bill is concerned, the hon. Member is a trifle premature. He will have to wait until we have a similar position to that which exists in Ireland and the Commonwealth countries.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I am in some considerable difficulty. I am very appreciative of the good intentions of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), who from time to time during these discussions has bent over to help us even when not completely assured of the wholehearted support of his colleagues, and he may be in that position today. But I am reinforced in my inclination to resist the Clause because I find myself so wholeheartedly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire. South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and

the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby). In such a combination it is exceedingly unlikely that I am wrong.

Mr. Boothby: The lunatic fringe?

Mr. McNeil: I thought there might be a more complimentary word since I was in agreement with the hon. Member.
There are three groups of reasons why I must resist the new Clause. First, we are not quite in the comparative seclusion enjoyed by Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, South, has already indicated the difficulties in the disposal of fish there. We are not in that position. I am relatively certain from inquiries and experience that a great deal of the fish obtained by the most violent and illegal methods is sent very far south, and we should therefore be making no attack upon that traffic by the proposed method.
4.30 p.m.
Second, we should be in a very odd position indeed if we had a system of registration which confined itself to Scotland and did not extend to this market where there is a great amount of activity. Third, if the Committee had felt inclined to accept a system of licensing, the natural corollory would have been a system of registration, but for reasons already debated, the Committee declined to agree that there should be a system of licensing.
There is no doubt, and the hon. Gentleman does not deny it, that a very considerable part of the market for illegally obtained fish, particularly salmon, is provided by hotels and doubtful restaurants. My own conclusion is that there are doubtful restaurants to be found within a comparatively short radius of this House. There are doubtful restaurants and hotels who have paid the price and made agreements to take illegally obtained salmon. This Clause would not touch them at all, and I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree with me in resisting it.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am in sympathy with the object which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), has in view. But the fact is that there are already licences in connection with game. One of the main difficulties of the gang poacher with a big haul of fish is the disposal of the haul. Our object


was not to increase form filling and controls at all, but to try to stop poaching and part of that process concerns the disposal of the haul. It was for that reason, and after discussion with my hon. Friend, that most of us on these benches after considering the matter, decided to support the Maconochie Committee's Report and moved an Amendment to that effect, because Sheriff Maconochie and his Committee were strongly in favour of that system.
That has been dealt with, and I will not repeat it. But I am in sympathy with my hon. Friend because he has the same object in view; and the Secretary of State, as a member of the Cabinet, could no doubt influence his English colleagues to see that they, not immediately perhaps, but in due course, came into line with a view to stopping this traffic in illegal fish. That was our sole object. It is of course entirely for my hon. Friend to say how he wishes to handle the matter, but I feel that the views of the Committee have been tested on this occasion and therefore I, personally, do not wish to pursue the matter further.

Question put, and negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman: The next five proposed new Clauses on the Order Paper are out of order.

Mr. Manuel: Do I understand you, Sir Charles, to rule that the proposed new Clauses—(Prosecutions), (National Coal Board Rights), (Protection of Fishing Rights), and (Rights of Anglers)—are not being called?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, they are out of order.

Mr. Manuel: While not questioning your right, Sir Charles, to adjudicate in these matters, but merely for my own education, may I point out that we debated at length the question of a new Clause proposed from the Liberal benches on the last occasion we sat, which went very much further than anything I suggest.

The Deputy-Chairman: I will tell the hon. Member why they are out of order so as to put his mind at rest. The first one—(Prosecutions)—is out of order because these cases go before a Sheriff Court and not before a Justice of the Peace. The next one—(National Coal

Board Rights), and the one after—(Protection of Fishing Rights)—are inconsistent with decisions already reached by the Committee. The last one—(Rights of Anglers), is out of order because this is a Bill for the protection of salmon and not for the protection of anglers. Does that satisfy the hon. Member?

Mr. Manuel: Yes, Sir Charles, I would merely comment that the Bill is, in my opinion, more for the protection of the landlords.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member used the term "Rights of anglers." I was merely using his own words.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I should like to ask you, Sir Charles, whether you ruled out of order the first proposed new Clause—(Amendment of Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868)—because it is meaningless? I understand you ruled the next four out of order because they are too full of meaning.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I gave my reasons to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel), and I think he understood me. Perhaps he will explain them to his hon. Friend.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would it be in order to offer respectful congratulations to you, Sir Charles, for having broken all the rules by explaining why you refused to select the proposed new Clauses?

The Deputy-Chairman: On the contrary, I quite expected to be asked to explain why they were out of order which it is my duty to do.

Mr. Manuel: May I ask, Sir Charles, if the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), who has been longer in this House than I, is not entirely out of order in attempting to instruct you?

First Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS.)

The Deputy-Chairman: The three proposed Amendments to the first Schedule, namely to leave out "(Protection)" in lines 8, 15 and 19 on page 11 are out of order.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Amendments were proposed in the interest of pure English. This word "Protection" is not necessary


and double brackets and things like that are extremely awkward. May I ask why it is out of order?

The Deputy-Chairman: We have already dealt with that point and have come to a decision upon it. These Amendments fall because they are consequential.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move in page 11, line 27, at the end, to insert:
In Schedule G, in paragraph 6, for the words "the Down Stream Face of" there shall be substituted the words "or at," and in paragraph 7 the words "than at present exists" shall he omitted.
This Amendment seeks to do what the hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) sought to do by a new Clause which was not called, it being out of order. This is to tidy up Schedule G of the Act of 1868. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that there seemed something wrong with that Schedule. It seemed to confine any improvements which we have made to the standards existing at the time when the 1868 Act was passed. He thought that most undesirable, having regard to the march of progress. We said we would look into the matter. We have done so, and we thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to it. By this Amendment we seek to omit the words offensive to him, and to the Committee, and to enable the Schedule to be read so that the most modern and up to date methods can be adopted.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: On an earlier Clause dealing with the weekly close time I had an Amendment on the Order Paper last week which was subsequently adopted by the Secretary of State. In a conversation we had beforehand behind the scenes he said, in his jocular fashion, "I will accept it on one condition, that there is only one speech on the matter." I accepted that and although as a matter of fact there were about a dozen speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee congratulating him on doing so, I refrained from lifting up my voice. I should now like to say that I did not do so because I was not grateful to him. I was grateful, and I wish to say now to the Lord Advocate that I am most grateful to him for accepting the Amendment which I was not allowed to propose, but

which I advocated last week, and I am glad that he has now consented to include it in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, column 3, to leave out "Section thirty-three," and to insert, "The whole Act."
This Amendment would repeal the whole of the Annan Fisheries Act of 1841 and not merely Section 33. Section 33 of that Act, which deals with poaching, is superseded by the provisions of the present Bill. It is the only Section of that Act which has been invoked for many years. The remaining Sections have been redundant over that period. In these circumstances, we feel justified in repealing the whole Act and not merely Section 23.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, line 16, column 3. after "thirty-nine," to insert "fifty."
The result of this Amendment will be to repeal Section 50 of the Tweed Fisheries Act, 1857, which made it an offence for any person not entitled to fish for salmon in the Tweed to have in his possession within five miles of the river any net or engine for the purpose of taking salmon, except for the purpose of manufacturing or repairing the same. However, in view of the terms of Clause 7, it will be unecessary to retain this provision, because Clause 7, which deals with illegal possession, is sufficiently wide to cover the provisions of Section 50 of the Act of 1857. Accordingly, we now seek to repeal Section 50.

Lord Dunglass: The Lord Advocate has said what I hoped that he would say, and his remarks might be taken as guidance in future cases brought under this Bill. In the area of the Tweed we have made considerable use of Section 50 of the Act of 1857. We were anxious that the powers which we have had should not be diminished in any way. Poachers on the Tweed show great ingenuity in the construction of nets; and the fact of having certain nets in their possession has meant that we have had, practically speaking, automatic convic-


tions. If the Lord Advocate is certain that Clause 7 really does not diminish in any way the powers which we exercised under Section 50 of the Act of 1857, we are agreeable to this change.

The Lord Advocate: Under Clause 7 of this Bill it will be a matter for the court to determine for what purposes an accused person was deemed to have possession of the nets or other instruments. That is only fair. It would be wrong to have a system whereby a person was automatically convicted because he had certain instruments or gear in his possession. It is clearly laid down in Clause 7 (2) that it will be for the court to determine whether it is a reasonable inference that a person in whose possession the instruments or gear are found had them for the purpose of contravening one of the Clauses of this Bill. I think that, substantially, it has the same effect as Section 50 of the old Act.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, line 18, column 3, after "sixty-three," to insert, "sixty-four."
The effect of this Amendment will be to repeal Section 64 of the Tweed Fisheries Act, 1857, as well as Section 63. Section 64 made it an offence for any person to have in his possession within five miles of the river any leister spear, or similar engine, used for the killing of salmon. Here again, we are satisfied that Clause 7 of this Bill covers that position and there is no need to keep this Section in existence any longer.

Amendment agreed to.

4.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, line 26, column 3, at the end, to insert:


22 &amp; 23 Vict. c. lXX
The Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act, 1859
Section seven, fourteen and fifteen.


The Committee will recollect that Clause 13 prescribes the weekly close time for Scotland and the whole of the River Tweed. Section 7 of the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act, 1859, which prescribes the weekly close time in the Tweed, will accordingly require to be repealed. Section 14 of the Act of 1859 which prohibits the use of pout net or rake hooks is already covered by Clause 2 of this Bill

and should be repealed. Section 15 of the 1859 Act which made fishing for salmon without permission—that is the rather polite way of referring to poaching—an offence in the Tweed, is unnecessary in view of the general provisions of this Bill.

Lord Dunglass: Was not it a fact that Section 15 made provision for the seizure and forfeiture of rod and line in certain cases, at any rate for the purpose of evidence to be brought before the court? In the Scottish courts, this may be all right. But the English courts, which cover part of the Tweed, have a habit of asking for this evidence. Is that position covered? Is there any provision in the Bill that seizure is allowed in order to produce evidence before the court?

The Lord Advocate: We have already discussed this question very fully indeed in relation to various Clauses in the Bill. I do not think I should detain the Committee by repeating the arguments. I am pleased to say that in the past few years we have been improving the legal education of the English by getting them to adopt many of our Scottish practices and customs. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is here, so that if he were not aware of the fact in the past, he is aware of it now. No doubt that education will continue in England. We discussed this matter at great length when we were considering the forfeiture Clauses. We discussed the reason why, under Clause 1, it was not necessary to attract forfeiture, apart from the fish, whereas under the other Clauses, general forfeiture would be possible.

Lord Dunglass: I am not sure that the Lord Advocate appreciates my argument. In the English Courts where perfectly plain cases have been brought, there has been a demand for factual evidence and the production of nets or whatever it may be. We have been able to do this under this section of the old Act, and we do not want to give it up now. We should be inclined to resist the repeal of this section unless we could be satisfied that that procedure will not be necessary in future. Otherwise, we shall lose a great many perfectly good cases in the English courts.

The Lord Advocate: I have been trying to resist the temptation to discuss the


merits of this matter. When we discussed this question earlier, I pointed out that the right of forfeiture under this Bill extended to every type of offence, except an offence under Clause 1 when the forfeiture powers were restricted to the fish in question. If we were dealing with nets and articles of that nature, that would constitute an offence not under Clause 1 but under Clause 2. Clause 2 attracts the general forfeiture provisions. Accordingly, it would be possible to seize these various instruments if an offence against Clause 2 took place—in other words, it would not be a case of fishing without permission but a case of fishing by illegal methods. According to the statement of the noble Lord the type of case he had in mind was that of fishing by illegal methods where nets and cleats and other instruments were used. He need have no fear, because we have retained the power of forfeiture and seizure in relation to cases of that type.

Lord Dunglass: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The matter is now perfectly clear, and we are quite satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move. in page 12, column 3. to leave out lines 31 to 36, and to insert:
seven so far as it relates to the weekly close time, and section.
In view of the new Clause 13, Section 7 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1862, should be repealed, so far as it refers to the weekly close time. Hence this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, column 3, to leave out lines 31 to 36, and to insert:
Section seventeen.
In section eighteen the words from the beginning of that section to the word 'fishing.'
Section twenty-five.
Section twenty-eight.
Section 17, Section 25 and part of Section 28 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, are already mentioned in this Schedule, but the Amendment adds the words in Section 18 prohibiting the use of salmon roe for fishing. This will be no longer necessary after the passing of this Bill, owing to the Amendment

to the definition of the expression "rod and line" in Clause 22 with which the Committee are now fully familiar. This Amendment also repeals Section 28, and the effect of that is to withdraw the rights of members and officers, if any, of the district board, other than the water bailiffs, to exercise the powers set out in Clause 10, regarding which we had a very full discussion and on which the Committee came to a decision. I do not think I should weary the Committee with the reasons why we restricted these powers to the persons mentioned in Clause 10, but this Amendment is really consequential on the decision we reached on Clause 10.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. McKie: Before this Schedule is agreed to, may I ask the Lord Advocate one question relating to it in connection with the proposed first repeal in the Schedule referring to the Solway Act, 1804, so far as it refers to salmon? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to give a word or two of explanation on why it was necessary to include this repeal in the Bill.
May I also express the hope that, if we do agree to this repeal—and no doubt we shall—it will not in any way prejudice the rights or interests of those who engage in the Solway salmon fishing industry, in regard to the one witness? I declare a personal as well as a constituency interest in this matter. The Lord Advocate will remember that, when we were discussing Clause 9, I asked him to clear up the position of the Solway salmon fishers in regard to the provisions concerning the one witness, as at present contained in the Bill.
I am well aware that the Lord Advocate was in trouble with many of his hon. Friends behind him with regard to the whole matter when the Clause was under discussion previously, and he agreed to give further consideration to the point if his hon. Friends would allow the Clause to go forward as it then stood. We have not yet reached the Report stage, and I do not know what discussions have been proceeding between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
However, I could not allow this Schedule to be added to the Bill without expressing the hope that, whatever decisions the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends may reach regarding the one witness, the Solway salmon fishers will not have their rights concerning the one witness, which they have enjoyed since 1804, prejudiced in any way. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say a word or two on those points, I shall be much obliged.

The Lord Advocate: I hope I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman in a few short sentences. The reason for the repqal of these parts of the 1804 Act is that they are now unnecessary and redundant in view of the terms of the Bill. Section 9 relates to poaching, which is the whole purpose of this Bill. Section 16 deals with the use of disguises for the purpose of poaching, and is no longer required in view of the provisions of the present Bill. So far as Clause 7 of this Bill is concerned, that is a matter for discussion. We had a very full discussion on it earlier, and no doubt it will be raised again at a subsequent stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

NEW STREETS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to secure the satisfactory construction, lighting, sewerage, furnishing and completion of streets adjacent to new buildings; to provide for the approval of such streets by local authorities; to make such approval a condition of certain licences and permissions, and to oblige and empower local authorities to adopt streets so approved, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase, attributable to the said Act in the sums payable under the Local Government Act, 1948, out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Lindgren.]

4.57 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: We thought that we would not have been able to agree to this proposal,

but drastic alterations have been made to the Bill. I should like to say how much we appreciate the work that has been done by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson), in trying to solve the difficult problem of finding how to eliminate a grievance which we all wanted to eliminate, without causing a great deal of hardship to a great many more people. We also came to the conclusion that the Bill would have been impracticable from the point of view of its operation by local authorities. It was an impracticable Bill and a bad Bill, but we now feel that it is a better Bill, and we are therefore able to support this Motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): But for the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh), I would have let this Motion go through "on the nod," but I do not think that one of her remarks should be allowed to go without question. This is not an impracticable Bill by any stretch of the imagination, but I agree with her that, in fact, it is to the advantage of this House generally that, where there are points of dispute, there should be negotiation and agreement. It is certainly not unreasonable that, where there has been payment of a deposit before the actual carrying out of the work, that work shall fall to be done at the cost of the local authority.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not go into the merits of the Bill on this Motion. I am not sure that I did not allow the right hon. Lady to go too far, and I think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to reply to her but no more.

Mr. Lindgren: That is the point. The right hon. Lady has referred to the fact that the Bill as drafted was unfair to the local authorities in regard to the making up of private streets. I do not accept that in any shape or form, but I do agree that there has been a difference of opinion as between the two sides of a House which is very narrowly divided, and that a mutual agreement has been arrived at. In the light of those circumstances, I am prepared to accept the right hon. Lady's view concerning that agreement; but that it is unfair for a charge to fall on the rates to pay for street works, I am not prepared to accept.

Miss Horsbrugh: I said nothing about a charge falling on the rates, or about the charge being unfair. I never used such words.

Mr. Lindgren: With all due respect, Major Milner, that was the only inference that could be drawn from the right hon. Lady's words. The only point under dispute is whether or not the difference between the actual deposit paid by a person in respect of street works is the final payment, or whether or not a local authority—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Are we entitled to go into these matters on a Money Resolution. Major Milner?

The Chairman: I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman that the discussion should not go any further. The Bill is not now before the Committee. At the same time, the right hon. Lady did, if she will forgive me for saying so tend to transgress the strict Rule relating to Money Resolutions. But I hope that both sides are now satisfied.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution reported forthwith, and agreed to.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 5th February.]

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 14.—(APPLICATION TO CROWN.)

Amendment moved [5th February] in page 11, line 36, after "Crown." to insert:
or the Duchy of Lancaster, and where there is an interest belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall."—[Mr. Powell.]

5.2 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before I was interrupted while explaining this Amendment two or three weeks ago, I had drawn the Committee's attention to the discrepancy between the 1927 Landlord and Tenant Act and the Bill before the Committee, in that the former Act applied to lands held by the Crown in right of the Duchy of Lancaster and in right of the Duchy of

Cornwall, whereas those lands were not covered by the present Bill. I was proceeding to examine the reasons alleged on Second Reading by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for this omission which the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) and myself seeks to remedy.
On Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said that special constitutional circumstances applied to the two Duchies, and he gave that as the first reason for the omission of those lands. But, if there are constitutional considerations which would prevent this Bill from applying to those Duchy lands surely they would equally have applied to the 1927 Landlord and Tenant Act. Therefore, I feel that the first reason given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, unless there has been some constitutional change in the intervening 24 years, can be set aside. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to draw a distinction, and said:
The obvious constitutional distinction between the Duchies and the private estates, on the one hand, and the Lands Commissioners and the Government Departments on the other, what was appropriate in one case was not appropriate in the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 391.]
Subject to the advice which the Committee may receive from the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General, I submit that that distinction is a false one. So far as I understand the position, the lands of the Duchies and the lands held in right of the Crown are substantially in the same position. The revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster and of the Crown lands are both paid into the Consolidated Fund and the Commissioners of Crown Lands are responsible for the administration of the lands held in right of the Crown.
It seems to me, therefore, that the distinction which the Attorney-General sought to draw between the Duchies and private estates, on the one hand, and lands administered by the Commissioners of Crown Lands, on the other, is an entirely false one, and that lands held by the Crown in right of the Crown and held by it in right of the Duchy of Lancaster are constitutionally on exactly the same footing.
Unless, therefore, the Government can give much better reasons than those given


on Second Reading for the drawing of this distinction, I suggest that we should follow the precedent of the 1927 Landlord and Tenant Act and render this Bill applicable, not only to lands held in right of the Crown, but to those held in right of the two Duchies.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not insist upon his Amendment. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, there are differences in the eye of the Constitution applicable to these lands. They are intangible in a sense, but the consideration which weighs with us is that the Sovereign is more personally concerned with the administration of the Duchy estates. But, however that may be—and that was a reason which actuated us in making this distinction, although I agree it has not been made in other Bills, though the fact that something appears in other Bills is not necessarily always the inexorable guide for a particular Bill—we thought it appropriate in this Bill to make this distinction.
But the main answer which I would make to the Amendment is that the distinction will really lead to little practical difference, because it is, in fact, the practice of those administering the Duchy Estates to act in a way similar to that in which they would have to act if the Statute bound them. The practice is the same as that laid down by the Statute, and it is the practice they voluntarily follow. In those circumstances, and in view of the different character of the interest of the Sovereign in relation to this particular Duchy land, we thought, although there are arguments which can be used on both sides, that we would in this particular case exclude them from the purview of the Bill, knowing that the result, so far as anybody was concerned, would be, to all intents and purposes, the same as if they were by name included in the Clause. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not insist upon the Amendment.

Mr. Powell: I have as great a tenderness as any other hon. Member of this Committee for the distinctive privileges of the Crown, and although the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General has admitted that by placing the Duchy lands in a special position in this Bill we are creating a distinction from what has been

the practice in previous legislation, I propose, in view of his undertaking as to the practice of those administering these lands, to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 12, line 1, after "Minister" insert "or Board."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill."

Sir Austin Hudson: When I was speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, I raised a question about sub-tenants of Crown property, of whom I have a fair number in my constituency of North Lewisham. Their chief grievance cannot be dealt with under this Bill, for it is that being sub-tenants of Crown property, they cannot come under the Rent Restriction Acts. I appreciate that we cannot discuss that now but what is happening in the case of sub-tenants of long leases is that the lease is bought up by somebody else who perhaps does not act for the sub-tenant as the Crown wilt act; and while the Solicitor-General said just now, quite rightly, that he was sure that the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall would act in every respect as perfect landlords, the trouble arises when we get this intervening tenant. I should like to know how far these tenants are affected by this Measure.
The Attorney-General, when replying to the Second Reading on a much broader basis, was not able to deal with this point, but he kindly told me that if I was able to raise it on the Question that Clause 14 stand part of the Bill he would endeavour to give an answer. Therefore, I would be obliged if the Solicitor-General could say in what way these tenants are affected, if at all, because that is my difficulty. Whenever I have raised this question I have always been told that these tenants are not affected at all by this Clause. But because they are Crown tenants they might be affected, although if they had not been Crown tenants perhaps they could not come under this Measure. If the Solicitor-General would say a word or two on this subject I would be obliged. If, not being a lawyer, I am displaying gross ignorance I apologise to the Committee.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he says, and the question arises as to the position of mesne landlords of Crown property. When I say "mesne" I do not mean "mean"; I am referring to the landlord who stands between the Crown and the sub-tenant. I appreciate that that matter arises, but I cannot give any undertaking with regard to altering the relationship between the mesne tenant of Crown property and the sub-tenant within the scope of this Bill. I fear that is a matter which must depend upon reconsideration of the Rent Restriction Acts as a whole; it would not come within the purview of this Bill which has a much more limited purpose. That is the 'only answer I can give at the moment. This Bill does not affect that particular question.

Sir A. Hudson: I take it that it would affect a long lease—a 21 years' lease.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Solicitor-General has just said, I would like to know whether there is any difference between the case where the ground landlords or head landlords are the Crown Commissioners, and where the private person is the head lessor or ground lessor. Is not the position precisely the same, and do not the provisions of the Bill embrace the case—I thought they did under Clause 5—of the sub-tenant in each case? I thought we had made provision for that. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that position is different from where the Commissioners are the head landlords, I should like him to elaborate it and make it clear, because it is an important point.

The Solicitor-General: The position can be stated, very shortly, in this way. The result of the decision of Clarke v. Downes is this: that case says that the Rent Restriction Acts do not bind the Crown, and therefore technically the Crown is not bound as against the subtenant under the terms of the Rent Restriction Acts. That difference between the case of Crown property and other property springs from the basic principle which was asserted and laid down by the case to which I referred, Clarke v. Downes. I can only say that, there being that difference which possibly leads to practical differences of

result in the case of mesne tenants, we cannot undertake in the scope of this Bill to deal with that situation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite following the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson). In the case of a sub-tenant of one of those houses which, by virtue of that decision, so far as the Crown is concerned, are not within the scope of the Rent Restriction Acts, surely the effect of this Bill will be to bring those sub-tenants within the ambit of Clause 5 of this Bill, in the same way as other sub-tenants are brought in there. Is that not so?
If that is so, surely I am right in saying that apart from the possibility of the Crown relying upon that decision to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred, the position of the sub-tenants to whom my hon. Friend has referred is exactly the same as the position of all other sub-tenants who come within the scope of Clause 5. So long as that is clear, I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied. I was a little alarmed when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, as it appeared to me, that there was a real and substantial difference and that Clause 5 did not apply to that category of sub-tenants. It may be my fault in misunderstanding it, but so long as it is clear we are satisfied.

The Solicitor-General: We will look into this question further before the Report stage; but, as I have said, I cannot give any general undertaking to make any change. Clause 5 changes the Knightsbridge Estates case, and brings within its scope tenants who, because of that decision, would otherwise have been outside the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts. Apart from the effect of the Clarke v. Downes case which excludes the Crown from the purview of the Rent Restriction Acts, the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that the effect of Clause 5 is to bring within the scope of the Acts a tenant of that kind.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. I would only ask him this. As he has said that he will look into it, would he be so good as to inform my hon. Friend and myself of the results of his further consideration


before the Report stage? If he does not table an Amendment to do something on this matter, and if there is a case which requires to be met. I am sure that my hon. Friend will seek to table an Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—{PROVISION WHERE REVERSION COMES TO AN END.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 5, at the beginning, to insert:
(1) Where by virtue of any provision of this Act a tenancy (in this subsection referred to as "the inferior tenancy") is continued or granted for a period such as to extend to or beyond the end of the term of a superior tenancy, the superior tenancy shall, for the purposes of this Act and of any other enactment and of any rule of law, be deemed so long as it subsists to be an interest in reversion expectant upon the termination of the inferior tenancy and, if there is no intermediate tenancy, to be the interest in reversion immediately expectant upon the termination thereof.
(2) Where by virtue of section two of this Act a tenancy is deemed to have continued during the period from the date of continuation until the commencement of this Act, the last foregoing subsection shall be deemed to have applied in relation to that tenancy and any superior tenancy.
The object of this apparently rather elaborate Amendment is quite simple, and I think I can illustrate it best by giving an example. Suppose we have a case in which—if I may borrow the letters of the alphabet—A lets to B under the terms of a lease which expires, say, in September of this year. B lets to a shopkeeper C under the terms of a lease which expires before then, say, in June of this year. As B's term does not terminate until after C's term, because B's term goes on until September, the result is that he would not be the holder of a reversion within the meaning of the expression "reversion" as has been defined, and therefore he would not be able to levy distress for rent, and so on.
Perhaps I have not made that quite clear. A lets to B under the terms of a lease which expires in September, 1951. B lets to a shopkeeper C and, therefore, brings Part II of the Bill into operation, under the terms of a lease which expires in June of this year. The effect of Part II is that the shopkeeper C gets an extension

for a year, and, therefore, his term is one which expires after B's term, as B's term expires in September this year whereas C's term, because of the extension he gets under Part II, expires in June, 1952.
The result is that without this Amendment B would not be a reversioner as his term would have expired before C's extended term had come to an end in June, 1951. Therefore B, while C is a tenant, would not enjoy rights which a reversioner has. He would not, for example, have the right to levy distress in the case of non-payment of rent. To prevent that result from ensuing, as it would under the Bill as drafted, we have provided, in this Amendment, that in a case such as I have described, where there is a prolongation of the lease which extends it to a period which is after the expiry of the tenancy, the tenant shall nevertheless, be considered as a person who is a reversioner and who, therefore, has the rights of a, reversioner.
This is a drafting Amendment in the sense that it removes what is a defect in the wording of Clause 15 as it at present stands. It is to give the landlord in those circumstances the rights he would have as a reversioner that I have moved the Amendment

Mr. John Hay: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his careful explanation of this rather complicated Amendment. There is just one fear I have on this point. If we are to give B, the original tenant, a kind of notional reversion—I think that is the effect—for an extended period, what is to be the position of the freeholder at that time if the original tenant B is entitled to take the necessary proceedings, for example for enforcement of covenants, and to levy distress for non-payment of rent? Does it mean that so far as the freeholder is concerned B will have to continuing paying his own head rent and matters of that kind? Does this reversion extension, which is purely a notional one, imply any obligations on the tenant?

The Solicitor-General: The fact is that so long as B's tenancy continues, in the assumed case until September, 1951, B is the reversioner and his relations with' freeholder are exactly the same and are not affected. When September. 1951 comes, B's tenancy expires and the effect


of Clause 15 as it stands is to bring the sub-tenant into direct relation with the freeholder, who then becomes the reversioner, and because the provisions of Section 139 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, will apply, by reason of Clause 15, to the case where the lease comes to an end otherwise than by surrender or merger, the freeholder becomes the reversioner and is then entitled to exercise his rights.

Mr. Charles Williams: I was worried about the precise meaning of this Amendment, and I wish to thank the Solicitor-General very sincerely for his extremely clear explanation. To anyone who has been in the House for some time it is a real pleasure to see a Law Officer taking considerable trouble in a case like this to make clear to Members of Parliament how to explain these matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a model for the Attorney-General, and I hope that a copy of the Solicitor-General's speech will be given to the Attorney-General so that he may learn how to treat the Committee on such occasions. I am very much indebted to the Solicitor-General.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(INTERPRETATION)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 12. line 41, to leave out "either."
This Amendment requires to be considered in conjunction with the following Amendment in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), in page 12, line 42, to leave out "or off." The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the Bill shall apply to premises which are occupied by the holder of an off-licence. I am aware that where the trade under the off-licence is only a minor portion of the total trade carried on by the tenant, he is outside the mischief of this definition, and is covered by the Bill. That, as I understand it, follows from the combination of the definition of "shop" as:
premises occupied wholly … or mainly for the purposes of a retail trade. …

and the definition of "retail trade," which I am seeking, by this Amendment, to vary.
The Amendment addresses itself to the case where the tenant carries on the greater part or the whole of his trade under an off-licence. At present premises to which an off-licence attaches are covered by the Rent Restriction Acts, and a good many such premises are occupied as statutory tenancies. Further, the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, apply to premises to which an off-licence attaches; and although there have not been many cases in which that Act has been invoked, I understand that there has been a certain number, and that those provisions have been of benefit directly or morally to tenants who are holders of off-licences.
In those circumstances I wish to ask the Government to consider whether the same should not now apply, and whether the tenants carrying on business under an off-licence should not be protected under the terms of the Bill. Clearly if the justices decide to terminate an off-licence, the tenant will not normally desire to remain in occupation: but so long as he retains a justices' off-licence, I see no reason why he should be deprived of the advantages of this Bill any more than a person carrying on any other kind of trade.
One realises the special position of the holder of premises where there is an onlicence—premises which are constructed and which exist purely for the purposes of the liquor trade on the premises. I suggest, and my contention is borne out both by the Rent Restriction Acts, which include off-licences and exclude on-licences and by the 1927 Act, which does the same, that we should in this Bill give protection to the tenant who carries on most or all of his trade in pursuance of an off-licence.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to this point. It had not been overlooked, but the reason why holders of on- and off-licences have been excluded from the description of shops is because it is felt that as the licensing justices have to decide the question of licences the jurisdiction of the justices would indirectly be encroached upon if holders of such licences were brought within the purview of this Bill, and thereby made eligible for extensions


of their tenancies. But for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has given, we feel on reflection that there is a distinction between the holder of an on-licence and the holder of an off-licence. For those reasons, which have commended themselves to us since he put down his Amendment, we have pleasure in saying that we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 42, leave out "or off."—[Mr.Powell.]

In page 13, line 1, at beginning, insert "the."—[The Solicitor-General.]

5.30 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Janner: I should like to make a further last-minute appeal before this matter proceeds to its final stage that the term "shop" should be reconsidered. As it stands at present, the term leaves rather an anomalous position with regard to certain professions. Let me give an illustration by mentioning members of one profession. It is not recognised on the same plane as other professions perhaps, but it might very well be so recognised. I refer to ophthalmic opticians.
One might have an ophthalmic optician who has shop premises. If he exhibits in the window of his shop certain of his wares and if, as it were, he carries on a business in that shop, he is protected. But if he desires to place an ethical standard of a higher nature on his work and carries on in shop premises precisely the same business, without exhibiting his wares at all, he is not protected. That, if I may say so, obviously creates a position which is absurd with regard to that particular trade or profession, whichever one might care to call it.
The question affects many other professions. One can visualise a solicitor who has a shop premises and is living on the premises, as is sometimes the case in the smaller towns and even possibly in London. Another solicitor may have an office in a shop premises although, in fact, he is not, of course, carrying on what might be called a recognised retail business in those premises. The same thing applies to a surgery for

a doctor or a dental surgeon. I think that it would be quite within the scope of this Bill that the definition "shop" should be extended to include those cases. I believe that the people who carry on these professions have as much right to protection as the ordinary shopkeeper, although, of course, I quite agree that the ordinary shopkeeper is fully entitled to the protection given to him here.
What, perhaps, is even more important is that in the dental or medical profession if a man is turned out of a surgery in a particular district it may very well be that there are no other available premises at all. That would work very considerable hardship upon the people who have to seek the services of that professional man. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will find it possible to extend the definition of this term to include those professions to which I have referred and that he will let us know, on the Report stage, that that is practicable under the Bill.

Mr. Higgs: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might care to say a little on the question of restaurants. In the definition of "retail trade or business" at the bottom of page 12 of the Bill it is apparently intended to exclude from the benefit of the Bill businesses which are for the sale of meals or refreshments and which are licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises.
Why have the Government decided that while a restaurant where no intoxicants are sold is to have the benefit of this Bill, a restaurant where the proprietor has been sufficiently considerate of the tastes of his customers to obtain and pay for a licence should not have the benefit of the Bill, on that ground and on that ground alone? I offer this thought to guide the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that that is rather to put a premium on the somewhat doubtful procedure followed by some people of starting a sort of club so that patrons of the restaurant may, by the fiction of being members of a club on the premises, obtain intoxicants with their meals.
That is done quite commonly and I wonder whether or not a place registered as a club but not licensed by the licensing justices would be included as premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor.


It seems to me that we are penalising the one person who is going the right way about the business of supplying liquor to his customers, namely by paying the proper dues to the Revenue and persuading the justices that he should have a licence. This apparent exclusion causes a little wonderment in some quarters and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look into it.

Mr. Hay: I should like to ask another question on the definition of "shop." I am concerned with two more anomalies. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), has mentioned some anomalies, and although I do not agree entirely with all he has said I agree that there are anomalies. I am interested in the position of organisations like building societies and insurance companies who have offices which contain shop premises attached to them where people make payments and transact various kinds of business. Would they come within the definition of "shop" as in the Shops Act, 1950? The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have seen these types of premises as he goes about his daily work. It often happens that they do a great deal of their over-the-counter trade in what is, to all intents and purposes, a shop. I do not expect a definite answer now but perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will meet that point.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) introduced his observations by saying that he was again making a last-minute appeal. It would hardly be a service to the deliberations of the Committee if I embarked again upon a long-scale disquisition upon the general question as to whether we should go beyond the ordinary understanding of "shop" or maintain the attitude we have adopted, that is to say, keeping to the limited scope which is within Part II and keeping within the ambit of what can properly be described as a shop.
I do not want to repeat the general reasons but, as the Committee knows, we said earlier, both during Second Reading and also when we were discussing Part II, that we thought it right for the purposes of this temporary Measure to keep ourselves within the area of shops proper, in order not to embark upon the

very large-scale change which would probably result if we included business premises, industrial premises and all the rest. We thought that the repercussions which might result from such a change could be very far-reaching and might have a disturbing effect.
It was for that general reason, which I repeat only in general terms, that we thought we should bring simply shops within the scope of Part II, and I do not think I can add to what we have said previously about our reasons for adopting that view. Perhaps it was right; perhaps it was wrong. I have been asked in a debate on Clause 17 to re-open the basic principle upon which the Bill is framed. I am sorry to say that I cannot undertake to do that, having proceeded hitherto on the general basis which we have adopted and which we still think is right, for reasons which we have already given on many occasions.
I turn next to the question of restaurants with an on-licence. It is very difficult to draw the line here, and we feel that where there is a restaurant with an on-licence—the granting of which has to be determined in the way in which the granting of all other on-licences is determined—it is not practicable to distinguish such a restaurant from a public house which also sells meals. In a sense, of course, they are quite different. It depends on the restaurant.
If one seeks to draw a line between the two, based on sound reasons which do not lead to absurd results in particular instances, one embarks upon a very difficult task; it is very difficult indeed to define a restaurant with an on-licence in terms which will not include a public house, in the ordinary sense, where meals are served.
Perhaps it was right, perhaps it was wrong to exclude public houses, but upon the assumption that we were right in excluding them—though not off-licences since we have accepted an Amendment—we thought it was extremely difficult to try to include the restaurant which has an on-licence. It would mean drafting which would probably produce unsatisfactory results and lead to a feeling of injustice in a number of cases.
I shall deal now with the question of building societies where a shop is part of the premises. I would not like to be kept


to this answer because it may be wrong, but I would have said that where shop premises, although part of the general building in which the building society or whatever it may be is housed, can nevertheless be said to be a separate room, a separate portion of the premises; and where the shop undertaking is an undertaking separate from the rest of the operations of the building society; I should have thought that these—and I repeat that I would not like to bind myself to the answer without considering the matter more fully—would be shop premises within the meaning of the Clause. That would be my answer to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay).

Mr. Hay: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the matter before Report stage?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly. I think I have now dealt with all the points raised. I hope the Committee will agree that as the Clause is now phrased it does what it is expected to do and gives reasonably clear definitions which fit in with the other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Janner: What would be my right hon. and learned Friend's view, for example, with regard to a hairdresser's establishment—an establishment which is not carried on
wholly or mainly for the purposes of a retail trade or business"?
Is it to be protected or not? I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter because it is very important that a large number of anomalous cases should be covered.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not try to answer every question put to him by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on matters of this sort. I have never been able to make out whether the hon. Member wants this Bill to be passed or not. Quite obviously, whether premises come within a definition in this Clause is in every case a question of fact, and if we were to spend the whole time dealing with cases such as that which the hon. Member put to his right hon. and learned Friend, we should take a very long time and not complete the Committee stage tonight.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER OF LANDLORD TO DETERMINE CONTINUED TENANCY IN EVENT OF ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLETTING.)

(1) If at any time after the date of expiry—

(a) an assignment by the tenant takes effect (whether in law or in equity), being an assignment affecting the whole or any part of the living accommodation comprised in a tenancy continued by section one of this Act, or
(b) every part of such accommodation is either subject to a sub-tenancy created (whether immediately or derivatively and whether before or after the date of expiry) out of the tenancy or occupied by a person holding over after the coming to an end of such a sub-tenancy,
the landlord may by notice given at or after that time determine the tenancy on such date, not being earlier than the expiration of one month from the giving of the notice, as may be specified therein.

(2) The last foregoing subsection shall apply to tenancies continued by section two of this Act, but with the substitution for references to the date of expiry of references to the commencement of this Act.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

5.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second Time."
This Clause is designed specifically to meet an objection voiced earlier to the effect that it was not right that a tenant who was granted an extended tenancy under the terms of Part I of the Bill should be enabled to turn that circumstance to his advantage by assigning or sub-letting. The new Clause has the following effect. If there is an assignment of the whole or part of the living accommodation of the premises in question, or if there is a sub-letting of the whole of the living accommodation, then the landlord can give notice terminating the tenancy.
I think that meets the major argument which was advanced in this respect. Of necessity, the Clause has to be somewhat complicated in its drafting, and the Committee may have noted that the assignment relates to the assignment of the whole or any part of the living accommodation whereas the sub-tenancy relates


only to the whole. there are technical reasons for that distinction between the whole or part in the case of an assignment and the whole only in the case of a sub-tenancy. Perhaps the Committee would accept it from me that our object in making that distinction was to prevent a very easy way of evasion and at the same time to make it possible for a tenant to sub-let a part of the premises in question, himself residing in the other part, which, having regard to the present housing shortage, we thought it was right he should be able to do. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will accept the Clause.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: By tabling this New Clause the right hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously made an effort to meet the objections, so strongly and persuasively advanced from this side of the Committee, to the Bill in its original form.

Mr. Janner: Why waste time?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We are not wasting time by discussing a new Clause which has appeared on the Order Paper for the first time.

Mr. Janner: Why waste more time?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the efforts he has made. Apparently the hon. Member thinks that that is a waste of time.

Mr. Janner: rose—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I cannot give way. We want to get on. The hon. Gentleman can follow me afterwards if he wants to comment on the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the technical difficulties connected with the disparity between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). I quite see the need for making it an assignment of the whole or of part, and that part of the Clause seems to me to be entirely satisfactory.
I am a little puzzled about paragraph (b). As it now stands it seems to me that it leaves the door open to a good deal of exploitation on the part of the tenant. As I understand it, the tenancy will not be determinable if the tenant retains one bedroom in the living accommodation for himself or for a member of his family, and lets out the rest of the premises into

separate accommodation to a number of sub-tenants, to whom he will be able, presumably, to charge what rent he likes. I think I am right in saying—I am not sure—that the first letting, the breaking up as we envisage it in the new Clause, would not be under the Rent Restriction Acts. I do not think it would, but it does seem rather odd that a tenant should be given the right under paragraph (b) of letting off to a number of sub-tenants, at a, perhaps, largely increased rent when, if he sub-lets the whole of the living accommodation, his lease can be determined.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to apply his mind to that. I do not think the point is met by saying, "We have done this to facilitate the provision of housing accommodation." We have also to consider the position of the subtenants, and I am not sure whether it would not be better—I am not expressing any view upon this, but I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider it—to provide that where there is a sub-letting within the period this Bill operates of any part of the living accommodation the sub-tenant may become the direct tenant of the landlord, rather than that we should preserve the position as it is now put in this new Clause. I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could expand his explanation of paragraph (b) a little further, because, while I welcome the new Clause in principle, it does seem to me, following what he has said, to have a little defect in that part of it.

The Solicitor-General: What we were anxious to provide was that a tenant with a prolonged tenancy should not be liable to lose his tenancy if he sub-let part but lived in the rest himself. We took that view because we thought that present-day circumstances did make it desirable in the public interest that a tenant who had available room to let should be able to let it, so long as he himself retained part of it. Of course, it is perfectly possible that any tenant may exploit his subtenants, just as any landlord may exploit his tenants, but not every landlord does, nor every tenant does; but I am simply saying so far as the tenant of a prolonged tenancy is concerned, that he is in exactly the same position as any other tenant of a tenancy which is not prolonged, and that he is in neither a better


nor a worse position to exploit persons who may become sub-tenants of his. That is the answer I give to that particular suggestion.
But we think that the public interest does require that we should not prevent a person who has his tenancy extended for two years from sub-letting part of it if he can accommodate himself in less than the whole amount of the accommodation within the particular dwelling unit. If the question is asked, why, in those circumstances, we provided that assignment of part gives rise to a notice to terminate, I answer that that was to avoid what would be otherwise an easy means of evasion; because a tenant may sub-let part and assign part, and, at the same time, not render himself liable to have a notice served on him by his landlord for so doing; and that would put it in the power of the tenant to do exactly what hon. Members opposite do not want it to be possible for him to do; and it is for that reason that the new Clause appears in its present form.

Mr. Molson: I do hope that the Solicitor-General will give a little further thought to this point. In this Bill it is proposed artificially to extend the duration of the lease. The original purpose of this was to safeguard the position of the tenant. I think that my hon. and learned Friend has raised a point of some substance when he points out that, as a result of the extension of the tenancy which is given under this Bill, in order to ensure that the tenant shall not be turned out of the house she has been occupying so long, it is quite essential that there should be some safeguard against that concession being used as a ground for profiteering on the part of the tenant.
I would put this further point to the learned Solicitor-General, that it may very well be that under the original lease the tenant would have forfeited his rights if he had sub-let. If I am right in my understanding of the Bill he will be protected against forfeiting his rights during the period of extension even if he does commit a breach of one of the conditions that have applied. When this protection is given—protection against forfeiture of his lease for breaking this condition—it appears to me that the Government really should try to make certain that this new Clause will not lead to what I am sure

they as well as hon. Members on this side of the House would regard as an abuse of the purpose for which this Bill was introduced.
I gladly express gratitude to the learned Solicitor-General for having tried to meet the point that was raised before, but I do hope that he will give a little further thought to this to see whether the drafting of this new Clause does not go a good deal wider than what was in his mind.

Mr. Black: I wonder if the learned Solicitor-General would help us over one point that arises from the explanation which he gave to the Committee, I think it would be helpful to some hon. Members if he would answer this question. If I followed him aright, he referred to the possibility of an assignment of part of the premises. I am not quite certain whether I heard and understood him correctly on that point, but is it possible for part of the premises to be assigned?

The Solicitor-General: It may be inappropriate but possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER OF LANDLORD TO CARRY OUT ESSENTIAL REPAIRS.)

(1) While a tenancy continues by virtue of section one or section two of this Act, or while before the date of expiry the tenant under a tenancy granted for such a term as is mentioned in the said section one, or a member of the tenant's family, is living in the property or part thereof in right of the tenancy, the following provisions shall have effect.

(2) The landlord or any superior landlord, or the agent or surveyor of either, shall he entitled (whether or not the terms and conditions of the tenancy so provide) at any reasonable time to enter on the property and examine the state of repair and condition thereof, and after giving reasonable notice to enter on the property and carry out any work reasonably required for preventing or arresting any serious depreciation in the condition of the property or of adjoining property.

(3) In so far as any expenditure in respect of the execution of work on the property—

(a) incurred by the landlord (whether by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, or by virtue of any of the terms and conditions of the tenancy), or
(b) incurred by some other person and recovered from the landlord,
was reasonably required in consequence of failure by the tenant to comply with any of


the said terms and conditions, the expenditure shall be recoverable by the landlord from the tenant whether or not those terms and conditions so provide.

(4) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section four of this Act shall apply to any right of recovery from the tenant (whether conferred by the last foregoing subsection or by the terms and conditions of the tenancy) of expenditure incurred by another person in consequence of failure by the tenant to comply with those terms and conditions, as it applies to such a right to damages as is mentioned in the said paragraph (a).

(5) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be construed as derogating from any of the terms and conditions of a tenancy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of it will be quite apparent to the Committee. Let me say at once to hon. Gentlemen opposite who were very insistent, during the earlier stages of our discussions, upon the necessity for introducing a safeguard against serious depreciation, that this new Clause is not intended and does not purport to go the whole length of what they wanted, but it goes some part of the way. The argument was that it was wrong that during the two years extension, because of the effect of Clause 4 of the Bill, the landlord should be virtually powerless to take any steps by way of forfeiture in the event, say, of serious depreciation of the premises owing to lack by the tenant of care to take the necessary steps to maintain the premises. Hon. Members opposite particularly complained of Clause 4, because it seemed to them that it had that effect.
What this new Clause is designed to do, as I have said, is to go some way to meet that objection; but I do not for a moment pretend it goes the whole way they want. What it does is to say that during the two years period although landlords are not given the right of forfeiture at all for breach of covenant to maintain. nevertheless, if it can be said that work is necessary for preventing or arresting serious depreciation in the condition of the property or of adjoining property, and only in that case—in other words, where the danger is of serious depreciation—the landlord shall be entitled to go in to do the repairs and recover the cost of doing the repairs, so far as it was reasonably necessary to do them, from the tenant. The right of the landlord to recover that cost is suspended,

just as the remedy for damages in case of other breaches of covenants is at present suspended under Clause 4 until the termination of the extended tenancy.
6.0 p.m.
That is what this proposed new Clause does. It provides this degree of safeguard to a landlord who sees his premises being allowed to fall into a state of serious neglect. If he can show that there is a danger of serious depreciation he is given the right to go in to see the state of the premises, and the right to carry out necessary repairs to prevent serious depreciation. He cannot, however, claim to be repaid by the tenant during the two years extended currency of the lease; he must wait until the end of it, but when the end of it comes he can, under the terms of the tenancy, claim to be repaid the amount which was reasonably necessary to do the repairs.
As I said at the outset of my observations, this new Clause goes part of the way, but only part of the way, towards the goal hon. Members opposite had in mind when they previously criticised Clause 4. In my submission, it at any rate provides a reasonable safeguard to the landlord who can, in the event of his premises being allowed to fall into a state of serious decay and neglect, go in and put an end to that state of affairs.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is an effort to go some way to meet the problems to which we drew attention earlier in our discussions, but the distance it travels in that direction is very small indeed, and I must say that I do not regard this as a satisfactory Clause in its present form. What we are seeking to do is, by some means or another, to secure that during the next two years existing property which, owing to the Government's failure to permit repairs being done, is falling rapidly into disrepair in so many parts of the country shall not be allowed to deteriorate if that can be avoided.
We put forward our proposals for dealing with this at an earlier stage in our discussions and I shall not repeat what I said then or prolong the discussion now by re-opening that debate, but I ask the Committee just to consider what this proposed Clause really does, and to consider whether it is likely to be in the least degree effective in preventing the


unnecessary deterioration of property. After all, to whomever they belong, the maintenance of houses is a matter of urgent importance in the national interest.
Under subsection (2) we find that the landlord, or his agent or surveyor, is given a right of entry, whether he had it before or not, to carry out work.
for preventing or arresting any serious depreciation in the condition of the property or adjoining property.
Of course, there is no objection which anyone could take to that, but when we look at subsection (3) we see that the expenditure is divided into two categories: first, expenditure incurred by the landlord; and, secondly, expenditure incurred by some other person and recovered from the landlord. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what he has in mind when he says:
expenditure … incurred by some other person and recovered from the landlord.
He did not deal with that in explaining the meaning of this new Clause.
Subsection (2) goes on to say that if that expenditure, whether incurred by the landlord or by some other person and recovered from the landlord,
was … in consequence of failure by the tenant to comply with any of the said terms and conditions"—
that is of the tenancy—
the expenditure shall be recoverable by the landlord from the tenant whether or not those terms and conditions so provide.
As I understand it, if this work has been done, either by the landlord or by another person and the cost recovered from the landlord, and if it is work which arises in consequence of the failure of the tenant to comply with the obligations of the tenancy, it is provided that the expenditure shall be recoverable whether or not the terms and conditions of the tenancy so provide. It would appear from this that if the failure to comply with the covenant is established, and if cost is incurred in remedying the consequences of that failure, under this subsection the landlord is given a right of recovery which at the present time he may not possess. That is as I understand the new Clause so far.
Then we go on to read subsection (4), which says:
Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section four … shall apply to any right of

recovery from the tenant … of expenditure incurred by another person.
That is the second category referred to in subsection (3). As I see it, there is nothing there to say that subsection (4) shall apply to recovery by the tenant of expenditure incurred by him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that subsection (4) does apply. I may be wrong, but as I read the proposed new Clause I do not see that it does apply where the expenditure is incurred by the landlord. Subsection (4) is only brought in when the expenditure is apparently incurred by some other person than the landlord, reading subsection (4) with subsection (3).
I must say that on reading this Clause for the first time I arrived at the conclusion that it gave to the landlord a right of entering and doing repairs which were necessary, and where the repairs were rendered necessary by reason of the tenant's failure to comply with his covenants there was a right of recovery of the expense of those repairs from the tenant; but, in view of subsection (4), where another person incurred expense due to the failure of the tenant to comply with his obligations and that other person recovered the expense from the landlord, the landlord would not be able to recover. That, as I see it, is what this Clause means.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of this Clause is correct—and I am sure he will admit that it is not, in its wording, the easiest Clause one has seen—it will lead to the most astonishing results. According to him, for the purpose of keeping property in repair the landlord is given a right of entry and a right to put the property into repair, but no right of recovering anything from the tenant, who is under an obligation in respect of those repairs, until after the termination of the lease, when a tenant has perhaps quitted and may not be traceable. The suggestion we put forward is much better than that.
What is going to happen in practice? Take the case of a bad tenant. There are some, and there are some bad landlords. Take the case of a bad tenant who is not keeping the house in proper repair, and the landlord goes in under this Clause and puts it right. The tenant can commit waste and again allow the property to fall into disrepair by his own


neglect or misuse of it. Is the landlord to come in again and again at his own expense, to put right the condition of the property and merely have, at the end of the tenancy, the right of suing the vanishing, bad tenant? That is a case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with. It is a case that may arise, and it is one that should be dealt with if we are to do equity in a matter of this sort. We have heard much about this being a standstill Measure, and the result will be, if it is left in its present form, that, in spite of this Clause, it will be a Measure which will lead to the decay of a great deal of house property.

Mr. Janner: I think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman really understood what the Clause said, he would have seen that it goes very much further than many of us would want a Clause of this nature to go. He said that this was his first reading of the Clause. If he had read it a little more thoroughly he would not have made such foolish comments with regard to the remarks of other people who know a little about the Acts. We are anxious to make this Measure as comprehensive as we can in order to protect tenants who hitherto have not had that protection. Many hundreds and thousands of tenants have been turned out when their leases have expired since they have spent a lot of money on repairs. The sooner he realises that, perhaps the quicker he will be to see that some of his comments are foolish.
I would like to ask one question with regard to the tenant who has unfortunately been placed in a position of taking over premises which have been neglected for many years. The tenant, for example, whose landlord was under no obligation to do outside repairs and the tenant was under an obligation to do inside repairs, which sometimes happens, under long leases. What is his position? According to this Clause, we are calling upon the tenant to do certain repairs which through his landlord's inaction became necessary, and it may be that the tenant's neglect is due to this inaction from another direction.
The second point which I would like to ask him is this: Why has the tenant who, after all, is defined as the tenant actually occupying the premises, to pay

for a considerable amount of repairs which many of his predecessors have failed to do in consequence of the fact that the landlord did not do the portion of the repairs which under the lease he was required to do?

6.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: It is, of course, difficult to find a Clause which adequately meets the conflicting points of view over this matter. We feel that we cannot go further than we have gone without running into the danger of providing a purely illusory protection, and we are not prepared to do that. The Bill is designed to provide real protection to the tenant, and if one puts into the hands of the landlord more drastic powers, we are making the protection which we are seeking to give to the tenant during the two year period of much less value than it is at present.
That is why I have been thinking how we can meet the arguments, both in the House and the Committee, advanced on Clause 4. We thought that this was a reasonable compromise to both demands. I think that there are sufficient safeguards in the Clause to overcome the dangers of which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) is apprehensive.
The new Clause only provides for work
reasonably required for preventing or arresting any serious depreciation in the condition of the property.
In the event of a dispute—and we hope there will not be a dispute in this short interim Measure—and the case went to court, it would be for the judge to decide; but one hopes that it will not be necessary to resort to the courts and that the two parties will be able to put their heads together and agree on what is reasonable in a particular case.
There is a further effective safeguard in the Bill. In the first place, the only work that is contemplated as being within the purview of the Clause is work which is necessary or reasonably necessary for preventing or arresting serious depreciation. It could be said that that certainly is not more than is reasonable. It is not unreasonable to say that the Clause should be so worded that if it is obvious that the premises are going into serious decay or neglect, it should be possible for the landlord to do something to arrest that process. Secondly, I would say to my


hon. Friend that the only amount which the landlord can recover is that which is reasonable. He cannot recover any fantastic amount in respect of work which is quite unnecessary. There are these two quite separate safeguards, which, we think, adequately safeguard the tenant's position.

Mr. Powell: I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the whole Clause relates only to repairs necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation. I suggest, unless I have misread the Clause, that subsection (3, a) goes wider than that, because it covers expenditure incurred not only in respect of subsection (2) but also by virtue of the conditions of tenancy, so that the first safeguard which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions applies to only part of it.

The Solicitor-General: Subsection (3, a) is subject to the further qualification that the landlord can only recover from the tenant expenditure under subsections (3, a) or (3, b) if it is reasonably required.

Mr. Powell: That was the second safeguard.

The Solicitor-General: That safeguard is applicable to the expenditure incurred under subsections (3, a) and (3, b) and subsection (3) as a whole only relates to the expenditure which is described in subsection (2), which is expenditure which is necessary.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Subsection (3, a) goes beyond that.

The Solicitor-General: Subsection (2) relates to work necessary for preventing serious depreciation. Subsection (3), in so far as any expenditure is incurred in respect of the execution of the work on the property—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman really must attach some force to the words following "landlord" in line 14,
whether by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, …
which relates to preventing any serious depreciation, or work incurred by the landlord
by virtue of any of the terms and conditions of the tenancy.

Those words must have some meaning and they may cover the same area of territory, but they may go beyond what is provided in subsection (2). I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he reads the Clause again, will probably agree that that must be so.

The Solicitor-General: Looking at it now, I agree that it is ambiguous, and I shall look at it again between now and the Report stage. I agree that the words to which I referred could either relate back or stand independently of subsection (2). I should like to consider that point again, and I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for calling my attention to it.
Perhaps I might now answer the two specific questions that were put. The reference in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) is to the case in which the landlord is himself a tenant and, being a tenant, his head lessor under the head lease does the work and recovers the amount from him. We get the case where the landlord is a tenant and he is under an obligation to his head lessor. He does some work under the terms of the lease and recovers it from the tenant. That is the kind of situation invisaged under this paragraph.
The second question was in regard to subsection (4). The hon. and learned Member directed his attention to the words "incurred by another person." It might also be said that they are not as clear as they might be, but, from a straightforward reading, that applies both to the landlord referred to in subsection (4) and to the other person referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (3). It might have been more felicitous to expand the expression, but we shall look at that between now and the Report stage. Therefore, it applies to both categories of cases, although it is not quite as clearly drafted as might be. We shall certainly look at it again.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the Solicitor-General is going to re-draft the Clause, I hope he will pay attention to the wording of subsection (4) which would be sufficient to debar a third party from recovering the costs of repairs to his property, if it were adjoining property, until the two years had elapsed. May I put the case to him which he will find in the Law Reports, the case where adjoining property sustained extremely severe


damage by tree roots. Repairs had to be effected and costs had to be incurred by the occupier of the adjoining property. Under the Clause that third party, although he is not a landlord and there is no such relationship between him and the occupier of the adjoining premises, would not be entitled to recover the sum he has expended in putting his property into repair due to failure by the adjoining occupier.
It seems to me to be at least arguable whether the Clause would not cover the owner of the damaged house as being "another person." That is, the owner or occupier of adjoining property in respect of which repairs were necessary owing to failure on the part of the tenant of the adjoining property. I want to be quite certain that the Clause does not go so far as to debar the adjoining occupier who suffers damage in that way from recovering the expense of putting it right. The wording is very bad, but I gather from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the Clause is to be reconsidered between now and Report stage.

The Solicitor-General: We shall certainly look at that point. I do not think there is much danger, because the only expenditure which can be recovered is expenditure
reasonably required in consequence of failure by the tenant to comply with any of the said terms.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It would be
work reasonably required for preventing or arresting any serious depreciation in the condition of the property or of adjoining property.

The Solicitor-General: I dare say that it would, but it would not also comply with the requirement that it had to be in consequence of failure by the tenant to comply with "any of the terms." There would not be a "term" on the part of a tenant to avoid the particular damage to which the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring. If I might use the language of the hon. and learned Member earlier, I think that my most useful contribution, if we are to get the Committee stage finished at all, would be to say that I am very grateful to him for having studied this Clause so closely and that we shall consider his arguments between now and the Report stage.

Mr. George Thomas: I am very worried about this Clause. I do not like to see the Government Front Bench giving away so many concessions to the other side on a question of this sort. Two concessions have already been made by my right hon. and learned Friend. I am not concerned with the manipulations of leases and speculators in land, but with the little chap who owns his own cottage. I want to know whether the little chap is worse off as a result of this Clause, and whether the finance corporations can move in and do the repairs they want and then saddle the small man with the bill at the end. Does the Clause mean more money for the landlord than would otherwise have been the case?

Mr. Hay: No.

Mr. Thomas: It appears that hon. Members opposite have been arguing that the Clause does not go far enough. They want a little more money for the landlord. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it perfectly clear—as clear as anything has been in the debate—that the landlord will be able to claim at the end of the tenancy money that he would not otherwise have been able to claim but for this Clause.
I do not like all this talk about the tenant. I am not a lawyer. Lawyers talk of a man who has bought his own house, or built his own house, or lived in a house for 60 years as a tenant of some miserable, squalid finance corporation in London, whose activities I know from their administration in my part of the world. They talk as if these corporations had greater rights than the man who morally owns the house. My right hon. and learned Friend had better not go any further with the Clause on Report stage, or he may find trouble from this side if he gives another inch to the Opposition on this question.

The Solicitor-General: I am not suggesting that I should go any further. Hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who has obviously studied the Clause very carefully, take the view that there are certain possible ambiguities. It seems to me, on looking at the Clause rather more closely, that there is room for the possibility of two interpretations. I am saying no more than that I should like an opportunity


to consider the Clause between now and Report stage with a view to improving the drafting. I am not prepared to go further along the path in meeting the arguments of hon. Members opposite—I hope I am not importing any prejudice—which is not consistent with safeguarding the object we have in mind, which is to provide a real and not an illusory protection for the tenant.
I should like to say to my hon. Friend that what we have in mind is—we may get a case of an extended tenancy during the two years, with the tenant under an obligation to carry out certain repair to prevent the property decaying. If it can be said that the property is seriously going to wrack and ruin and there is the danger of serious depreciation owing to this failure to repair, then the landlord is given the rights which this Clause confers upon him. He can go into the property and carry out the repairs, but he cannot during the two years recover from the tenant the cost of carrying out those repairs. Any rights he has in that respect are postponed until the termination of the two years.
6.30 p.m.
Endeavouring as we do to hold the scales evenly between the conflicting interests involved and seeing to it that the tenant is adequately protected and that the landlord is given a reasonable measure of protection in the case where the property is seriously deteriorating, we think that, having listened to the arguments on this question, we have fairly drawn the line between the two. I understood that what was really the proposal that came from the hon. Gentleman opposite was to look at the matter again. I am not doing any more than looking again at the drafting with a view to removing ambiguities which do exist in the drafting, to which my attention has been called.

Mr. Hay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have had a fair measure of success in mollifying some of his opponents on the Government benches. Whether he will continue to mollify them if he pursues this new Clause to its conclusion I do not know, but it will be of interest, when adjustments are made to the Clause and an opportunity is given to discuss it on Report stage, to see whether the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G.

Thomas) and his hon. Friends will carry these strong opinions to a Division. My belief is that they probably will not, and that all this sound and fury is a bit bogus.
I want to turn to the principle of the new Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in approaching the Committee with the Clause, has told us on this side that this is a concession, an effort to try and meet the position we raised in the course of earlier debates. What exactly is the nature of this concession that he is going to give? He has talked a lot about landlords' rights, including the right of re-entry to do certain repairs. But that is about the only thing that the landlord is being given. The landlord is given the right to do the repairs to prevent the property falling down, but his right of recovery of the cost of doing them is going to be postponed until the end of two years.
The landlord can do these repairs at his own expense provided that at this stage he is prepared to advance the money to do so, and at the end of two years he can recover the money from the tenant. Who knows what the position is going to be at the end of two years? Frequently we have been told that this is a standstill Measure. Who knows what the form of the final Bill will be if this Government is still in office? What is the position of the landlord who has done these repairs and has been vested with the right of recovery from the tenant if the new Bill, which the Government are eventually going to introduce, does not safeguard his position?
Supposing the tenant, in fact, goes out at the end of the two years, how will the landlord recover his money if, in fact, he has the right of recovery of the expense of the repairs? The tenant will be vanishing and the landlord will try to find him to recover the money from him. This is the very dubious right that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given to the landlord. I think he has been drawn towards his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. West, who hovers on his flank and is prepared to sting if necessary, but I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here doing very much to help the landlord. It is very illusory and my personal opinion is that whatever the drafting we


must on Report seriously consider the whole principle of this new Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(SERVICE OF NOTICES.)

Section one hundred and ninety-six of the Law of Property Act, 1925, shall apply to the service of notices for the purposes of this Act, and be deemed to have applied to the service of notices for the purposes of section three thereof.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This brings into one particular Clause all references to service of notices. In other parts of the Bill we have left out—and the Committee have agreed to our so doing—other references to service of notices in order that this new Clause may cover them all.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. Hay: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 1 to leave out from beginning, to "shall," and to insert:
section twenty-three of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927.
The new Clause provides that the provisions of Section 196 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, shall apply to the service of notices. As many hon. Members know, that is a very customary provision in matters of this kind. It is an omnibus section introduced into the Law of Property Act and refers to service of notices and such like things. My point is—and I am certain that the Solicitor-General has looked at this matter—that Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, is a similar sort of section. It is a little shorter and in my view it is far more concise and more appropriate to the sort of situation which this Bill is intended to cover. I shall not weary the Committee—we are all anxious to make progress—by reading out the two contrasting sections of these two Acts. I have no doubt that hon. Members interested in this Amendment looked at them for themselves. I move my Amendment formally by saying that I hope the

right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, is far more appropriate for the sort of thing that this Bill is intended to cover.

The Solicitor-General: I am most anxious not to prolong the proceedings, but I am bound to say that it was my hope that when the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) moved his Amendment that he would indicate in argument why he thought the provisions of the 1927 Act were preferable to the provisions of Section 196 of the Law of Property Act. In the view that we have formed, there is not very much to choose between the two. I have a perfectly open mind on it, and would have liked to hear more in argument as to why we should prefer the form of the 1927 Act to the form of the 1925 Act. If the hon. Gentleman would be so kind, either now or at some later stage, to indicate the reasons which motivated him in putting down this Amendment in favour of Section 23 it would help, but at the moment we are taking Section 196. Although the two sections are similar they are not, in effect, quite the same, and we think that the more appropriate is the one which is in the Bill. I have a very open mind about the matter.

Mr. Hay: I did not want to give a long explanation to the Committee and I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give my point consideration. I do not propose even now to go in any great detail into the difference between the two, but I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman between now and the Report stage to look at those provisions, and particularly at subsections (2), (3) and (6) of Section 196 of the Law and Property Act, 1925. In those subsections are to be found the conditions which I consider entirely inappropriate for this sort of Bill.
Section 23 of the 1927 Act is far shorter, more concise and is the one which is normally used and resorted to by those who act for, and give advice to, landlords and tenants in matters similar to those covered by this Bill. Lawyers, solicitors and estate agents usually use in legal documents Section 27 of the 1927 Act. I shall not delay the Committee at this stage. I have indicated shortly what my points are and perhaps I might


write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the point clear. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

First Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO SECTION TWO.)

Sir Patrick Spens: I beg to move, in page 14, line 24, to leave out paragraph 4, and to insert:
4. Where, in relation to any tenancy to which section two of this Act would have applied if the tenancy had not expired before the commencement of this Act any order or judgment has been made or given by a court before the commencement of this Act, and has not been executed, and in the opinion of the court the order or judgment would not have been made or given if at the time thereof this Act had been in operation, the court may on application by the tenant rescind or vary the order or judgment in such manner as the court thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.
This Amendment affects the transitional provisions dealing with people who have been tenants, whose leases or tenancies have come to an end and who remain in possession against the will of their landlords, and where the landlords have gone the length of praying to a court and obtaining an order against them. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule provides in those cases not that the order which the landlord has obtained shall not be completely effective or set aside, but only that certain portions of the order shall cease to have effect.
If there is an order to give the landlord possession of the property, or payment of any sum of money equal to the rent that ought to have been paid, it is quite right, so far as the order deals with those matters, that it should not be carried out in view of the lengthened term which is given by the Bill. In our view the proper way of dealing with that matter is that the tenant should go back to the county court and say to the judge, "Since you made the order this Act has been introduced under which a tenant has new rights. What is the order which ought to be made in the new circumstances?" Thus he would get a new and final order dealing with the new position set up by the Bill. That would mean setting aside any order for payment of any rents in arrear

and merely a direction to bring it into account.
In our view, as paragraph 4 of the Schedule is now worded, it does not mean that the existing proceedings will have come to an end. Sooner or later the parties will have to go back again to the county court. Our suggestion is much cheaper and quicker for everybody concerned. It is to go back at once and get the court to make the proper order which it would have made had it known that the Bill was coming into operation. Our Amendment is to substitute what we think is the more effective procedure that the parties should go back to the court. It is as I say quicker and cheaper, and involves no further costs than the arrangement made under paragraph 4.

6.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The object of the Amendment, as I understand it from the argument of the hon. and learned Member, is that there should be a right in the court to rescind an order if it is of opinion that, had this Measure been in force, the order was not such as would have been decided upon. It seems to me that there is a fundamental difficulty about it. I quite accept and understand the hon. and learned Member's references to the court being in a sense somewhat decorous, so as not to be abrupt in one's language about a court order. The difficulty is that in every case, as we conceive the situation, the court, if I may follow the language of the Amendment, would be bound to be of the opinion that no order would have been made if the Act had been in force. The Amendment says that the order can be rescinded if, in the opinion of the court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given, if, at the time, this Measure had been in operation. That is the prerequisite to the making of the recission order which the Amendment contemplates.
The difficulty which meets the hon. and learned Gentleman at the outset of his argument is that if you assume a court which is asked to make an order to turn out a tenant, in circumstances in which, if this Act had been already in operation, it could not have been made, the court would have said, "We cannot make an order because this tenant is allowed to remain in." In each case the court would have refused to make the order. To say that the parties should go back and ask


the court to rescind the order is to assume that if this Measure had been in operation the court would have made such an order when, in fact, it would not have done so.
Perhaps I have not understood the course of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but he appears to be proceeding upon a misconception. Although he might have had some slightly different purpose in mind, in point of fact the object which he would achieve by the wording he has chosen for the Amendment is one which has no scope within the Bill. The only result of the Amendment would be that a quite unnecessary procedure would be imposed upon the persons concerned because, ex hypothesi the court would not have made the order, supposing the Act to have been in force. In those circumstances we think that our form of words in paragraph 4 is preferable to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir P. Spens: The form of words in the paragraph only sets aside part of the order so far as it provides for possession, and so forth. Otherwise, it leaves the order of the court standing and leaves the proceedings going on. It means that, sooner or later, the parties have to go back to the court. I entirely accept the view that no court would make an order for possession. Obviously, it could not make an order for the payment of a sum of money for rent as rent, but it would clear up any matters dealt with by the order, on the basis that the Act was in operation. All this will be left standing. We suggest that the proper procedure is to send it back for the county court to make the order which it would have made if the Act had been in operation. In that way everything would be cleared up more quickly and cheaply.

Mr. Powell: Would the Solicitor-General direct his attention to the case, which I understand is not uncommon, in which a court gives an order for possession, and suspends it on condition of payment of the current rent and a prescribed proportion of the rent arrears? In the case of a judgment of that sort having been given, would not the effect of paragraph 4, and in particular of subparagraph (a), be to annul the effect of the judgment?

The Solicitor-General: Again, I am always receptive of argument, and I see

the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment as he now explains it—as he did before, although I did not quite follow his argument then—and as it has been explained in the argument just addressed to the Committee. As the paragraph at present stands, it is only part of the order which is brought to an end, and any part of the order which relates to payment of costs would, of course, stand. It is certainly arguable, in those circumstances, that it should be enforceable in so far as it relates to costs only but, having listened to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, amplified by the argument to which we have just listened, I should like, without any commitment, to look at it again and to think the matter over before the Report stage.
It is a technical matter, and it may be that some expense could be saved to the parties if they were given an opportunity to go back. I am, however, very far from sure that that is the case and very far from sure that it would not simply mean that applications would be made to the court which would he destined to failure and merely involve the parties in expense unnecessarily. There may be some applications of that sort. Without any commitment, I should like to consider the proposals if the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the Amendment is based on a similar provision in the Rent and Mortgage (Interest Restrictions) Act, 1939, when he comes to consider it?

The Solicitor-General: Yes. I would add that rent is payable currently under the Bill as it stands.

Sir P. Spens: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 15, line 40, to leave out paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9 is one of the paragraphs relating to the giving of notice. It refers to Section 196 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, at which we have already looked and which deals with the giving of notices. As we have already moved,


and the Committee has adopted, a new Clause which brings all those references into one Clause, it follows that we should leave out other specific references in the Bill to the giving of notice. The object of the Amendment is to achieve that purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to raise a point which I believe to be of some importance even at this late stage of our discussions—discussions which I think have not been uninteresting even though they have not as yet resulted in the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), justifying his exaggerated statements in the course of the Second Reading debate. The point to which I desire to draw the attention of the Committee is the contrast between Clause 2, as it now stands amended by the Committee, and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the First Schedule.
We had some discussion upon this when we were dealing with Clause 2. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would reconsider the matter. I hoped that it would lead to elucidation, because I think there is conflict between the First Schedule and Clause 2 as amended. I hoped that in the long interval that has elapsed the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have put down Amendments to the First Schedule to reconcile the two or to iron out the ambiguities and anomalies which appear to exist.
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the wording of paragraph 2 of the Schedule must be read in conjunction with Clause 2 and is entitled to have just as much weight put upon it as Clause 2. The second paragraph is very general in its terms. It says:
The continued tenancy shall be treated as having effect, and as having had effect, in substitution for any other tenancy or agreement. …
Obviously, before the First Schedule applies, the tenant has to come within Clause 2, but once he comes within the ambit of Clause 2—[Interruption.] I understand that the Minister of Local Government and Planning indicates that

he is here, and that therefore I should deal with this as shortly as I can. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman has a voice which carries. I see that he is waiting now. I can assure him that it will not put me off the argument which I am trying to expound.
Paragraph 2 is very general in its application, and while for paragraph 2 to apply the tenant has to come within the scope of Clause 2, once he is within that scope paragraph 2 obviously operates and attaches. Let us take the case of a tenant who comes within Clause 2, and, as it stands, has secured a renewal of his lease. Once he has done that he is within Clause 2. Then one turns to the First Schedule to see what is to happen to him. One then sees that that agreement has to be set on one side in substitution for any other tenancy or agreement. Is that right?
As I understand it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has endeavoured by paragraph 2 of the Schedule to prevent the rent being demanded twice. It is quite simple and easy to secure that. But whereas under Clause 2 as it stands we are saying that a certain case will come within the Clause where there has been a fresh agreement, paragraph 2 of the First Schedule says that fresh agreement shall be set aside and shall count as nothing. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) has pointed out, the wording of the proviso about the payment of the premium conflicts with the expression in paragraph 3:
… any penalty, mesne profits or other sum paid to the landlord. …
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had this put to him before, and he and the Attorney-General have given very unsatisfactory explanations. My concern is that if the Bill is left with the Schedule in its present form, the only beneficiaries as a result of this part of the Schedule will be members of the legal profession and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner).

The Solicitor-General: We certainly had been considering the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) since he spoke about the Schedule, but we really did not think that any change was necessary. The Schedule applies when the tenancy is continued under


Clause 2, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out. It is not continued under Clause 2 when a premium is paid. Once you find the situation in which the continuing tenant is there because he has paid a premium, Part I of the First Schedule has no application.
7.0 p.m.
The point of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich, to which the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has just referred was that the words "penalty, mesne profits or other sum" seem to duplicate the word "premium" and introduce a certain measure of uncertainty. They do not really. The premium is not a penalty within the meaning of this Schedule. If the hon. and learned Member asks what sort of penalty is contemplated, there are Statutes which provide penalties for certain defaults under leases. Mostly they are old statutes, and in particular there is one which is as old as 1730, but they are still part of the law of the land.
There may be a situation in which a lease is so worded that a penalty is payable and paid under that Act. This Schedule simply provides that where there is that situation where there is a penalty under one of those Acts, or there are mesne profits, or some sort of composition in respect of mesne profits, they shall count against the rent which is payable under the continued tenancy.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really say that the words "other sum paid to the landlord … in respect of the occupation of the property" would not include a premium?

The Solicitor-General: Even if they might, it would not matter because, as I have said, when the premium has been paid the Schedule has no application. I am simply explaining what those words refer to. When one gets the situation in which a tenant pays a premium and, because he has done so, continues as a tenant, one can entirely disregard the provisions of this Schedule because it has no application. That is the answer to the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
As I have said before, we can cross over the threshold into this Schedule but we must find a situation in which no premium has been paid. Once we find there is no premium and that the tenant continues on the same rent—in other words once we have found the situation in which Clause 2 operates and continues the tenancy—then we look to see what the tenant is paying. We may find that he is paying a penalty under one of these old Acts, though it is unlikely because cases are rare, but one still has to provide for them because they are still part of our legislation. It is, in point of fact, a sum of money which he is required under the Statute to pay because of failure to comply with some provision in the lease.
In order to prevent him having to pay it twice, we say that those sums are to go against the rent which is payable under the extended tenancy. Inasmuch as this only operates where we do not find a premium at the outset, we must have these provisions to prevent the tenant being called upon to pay twice under the extended tenancy the money payments which pass from him to the landlord as consideration for enjoying the tenancy. In those circumstances, having carefully considered the arguments, I do not think that any change is necessary. The wording is perfectly satisfactory as it is, and if I may venture to disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, it will not be the lawyers who would benefit so much as the tenants who continue under the terms of these extended tenancies.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I cannot agree that the wording of this Schedule is satisfactory. It is putting it far too high. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman found it difficult to make his explanation. I can see the objects which he wants to achieve, but I do not think this Schedule does that. It will lead to confusion. I am not at all sure that his interpretation of the relationship between Clause 2 and this Schedule is the interpretation which will be given by the courts. We have tried all we can in the course of this Committee stage to get the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider this point and to amend the wording. He has said he has considered our arguments, but he is not prepared to make any alteration to a


Schedule which is badly drawn, badly drafted and is by no means the best feature of a bad Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have ended upon that note. I desire to express my gratitude to him for having considered the wording of the Schedule. I simply meant to say that we had carefully pondered his arguments and, rightly or wrongly, we felt that the wording was

satisfactory. I hope he will not think me churlish and that I have not recognised the value of his efforts in trying to improve the wording though not the content of the wording.

Question put, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 190.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
17.6 p.m.


Adams, H. R.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mikardo, Ian


Albu, A. H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gilzean, A.
Moeran, E. W.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Glanville, James (Consett)
Monslow, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Gooch, E. G.
Moody, A. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Granville, Edgar (Eye)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Balfour, A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morley, R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bartley, P.
Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.


Benn, Wedgwood
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon, James (Llanetly)
Mulley, F. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grimond, J.
Murray, J. D.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gunter, R. J.
Nally, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Boardman, H
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Booth, A.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Bowden, H. W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Brockway, A. F
Hargreaves, A.
Pannell, T. C.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)
Pearson, A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Burton, Miss E.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pryde, D. J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Houghton, D.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hoy, J.
Rees, Mrs. D.


Champion, A. J.
Hubbard, T.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Richards, R.


Colliok, P.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Collindridge, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cook, T. F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Janner, B.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Jay, D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Daines, P.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Keenan, W.
Slater, J.


de Freitas, G.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Deer, G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sparks, J. A.


Donnelly, D.
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Dye, S.
MacColl, J. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McInnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edelman, M.
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Edwards Rt. Hon. Noss (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Ewart, R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Timmons, J.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Finch, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Tomney, F.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Vernon, W. F.


Fraser. Thomas (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Wallace, H. W.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)




Weitzman, D.
Wigg, G.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Walls, Percy (Faversham)
Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


West. D. G.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)
Wise, F. J.


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Williams, David (Neath)
Yates, V. F.


White. Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)



White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mr. Hannan and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Hollis, M. C.
Pickthorn, K.


Arbuthnot, John
Hope, Lord John
Pitman, I. J.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Powell, J. Enoch


Assheton, Rt, Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Banks, Col. C.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Major Tufton
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bevins, J. R (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Robson-Brown, W.


Bishop, F. P
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Black, C. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Roper, Sir Harold


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Jeffreys, General Sir George
Ross, Sir Ronald (Londonderry)


Boothby, R
Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)
Russell, R. S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D


Braine, B. R
Keeling, E. H
Savory, Prof. D. L


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Scott, Donald


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd, William


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir Walter


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lindsay, Martin
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W McN


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carson, Hon. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Channon, H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)


Clyde, J. L.
McAdden, S. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Colegate, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Storey, S.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
McKibbin, A.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Cranborne, Viscount
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. D. E
Maclay, Hon John
Studholme, H. G.


Crouch, R. F
MacLeod Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, G. S.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


de Chair, Somerset
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Teevan, T. L.


Deedes, W. F.
Maitland, Cmdr J. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Dunglass, Lord
Maudling R.
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E
Mellor, Sir John
Turner, H. F. L.


Fisher, Nigel
Molson, A. H. E.
Turton, R. H.


Fort, R
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Foster, John
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Monckton, Sir Walter
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Nabarro, G.
Vosper, D. F.


Gage, C. H.
Nicholls, Harmar
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)




Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nutting, Anthony
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wills, G.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Heard, Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
York, C.


Heath, Edward
Osborne, C.



Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Higgs, J. M. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Major Wheatley and Mr. Digby.


Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended to he considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

MINISTERS (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)

7.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council, dated 29th January, 1951, entitled the Transfer of Functions (Minister of Health and Minister of Local Government and Planning) (No. 1) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 142), a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be annulled.
We have to speak tonight under the conditions of a Prayer, but it covers a very wide field. Would it be possible, Sir, for you to give any Ruling as to the extent to which the debate might run?

Mr. Speaker: I am the servant of the House and I must see that the rules of the House are obeyed. A debate on a Statutory Instrument or on a Motion to annul it, commonly called a Prayer, is limited strictly to the contents of the Instrument. It is not permissible to suggest or to discuss alternative ways by which the objects of the Instrument might have been achieved. I know perfectly well that there has been some desire to discuss whether it was constitutional to change these functions by an order and not by an Act of Parliament, but that of course is, clearly, absolutely out of order on a Prayer, and I could not possibly allow discussion on that subject.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are much obliged to you, Sir, and I am sure that we shall be able to have a useful debate within the limits under which we have to work. As for the first point, it is, of course, clearly within the four corners of the Act that this change should be made, and I do not think that any of us would attempt to argue as to the legality of the step. As to the wisdom or the desirability of the step by this procedure, we may have two views, which may appear in the course of our discussion.
The purpose of the Order is undoubtedly a wide purpose. It is to change the title of the Minister of Town and Country Planning to the Minister of Local Government and Planning and to transfer to him all the functions of the Minister of Health except the actual administration of the National Health Services, the compilation of the vital statistics, the supervision of the welfare services and a measure of general oversight of the health

of the people. The functions which are being transferred, which are set out in the Explanatory Note, are, therefore, primarily the whole of the functions of the Ministry of Health before the National Health Service was set up.
Nobody could deny that this is a major re-organisation. The questions which we have to discuss are whether it is a good organisation and whether this is the best way to achieve the re-organisation. It is the clear desire of all of us to discuss, as far as we may, these great changes with as much freedom and latitude as is possible. Speaking on behalf of myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends, we desire so to approach it, and not to divide upon this Motion. We put down the Motion as a Motion to annul, because that is the only way in which the matter can be raised in the House—and it is clearly to the advantage of all of us that the matter should be raised. I do not suggest that the House should tonight demand that this step should be retraced; we wish to examine it on its merits.
As I have said, this is a question, first, of the re-organisation itself, and second, of the way in which it is being done. These two things are very closely bound up with each other. The question of the procedure by order and whether it would be satisfactory or not was discussed by the House at considerable length when the Act under which we are now operating was introduced on 25th January, 1946. It was introduced by the Lord President of the Council, whom we are glad to see here tonight and who, I take it, will be leading from the Government side in this discussion because, as the Ministers themselves are concerned, it would be a somewhat invidious task for them to defend their promotion, or demotion as the case may be.
The proposition that this procedure under which we are operating tonight might be appropriate was conceded on both sides of the House for certain cases and at certain times, in war-time or for use for periods of very exceptional pressure. It was considered that there should be examination ad hoc, but, as a suitable method of dealing with major changes when there was no special Parliamentary pressure, as far as I could gather from carefully reading the debate that was not stressed even by the Government.
The Solicitor-General, in fact, spoke at some length on the Bill on more than one occasion. On the Second Reading he said:
I can conceive of all sorts of functions of a minor character which it will be necessary from time to time to re-allocate as between one Minister and another. To give the House a kind of example I have in mind, let us take the Home Office which has a number of functions under the Factory Acts and similar Acts. They are functions of importance, but they are minor when considered in relation to the big tasks which the Government have to undertake. If some such functions are to be transferred from one Minister to another, it is a minor administrative proceeding, and to make it subject to affirmative Resolution would be to attribute to it an importance with which it should not be vested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1946; Vol. 498, c. 486.]
I think there would be general agreement on that point, but, as I say, this is not a question of a minor transfer of certain functions from the Home Office.
On the Committee stage the Solicitor-General said:
It is only the case, normally, of a transfer of comparatively minor function independently of the dissolution of a Department in which a negative Resolution is provided for in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1394.]
But the negative Resolution is what we are operating under tonight.

Mr. Speaker: May I say a word of warning because there is a Ruling that Orders in Council being made under the Act of Parliament, one must not criticise the parent Act of Parliament which this House has passed. Therefore, one cannot criticise the action, which I understand is perfectly correct, of making this Order.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not for a moment attempt to do so. I am merely indicating that the procedure which was envisaged by the Minister at the time, was a procedure relating to a narrower set of orders because the Bill gives power to proceed either by an affirmative Resolution, or a negative Resolution. I submit, with all respect, that it would have been competent for the Government to have proceeded either by affirmative or negative Resolution.

Mr. Pickthorn: On that point of order. I respectfully hope I can understand, but I do not quite follow what comes next. It surely cannot be the rule, Sir, that anything which is intra

vires in a Statutory Instrument within the powers of the statute, is thereby out of the purview of criticism for being excessive or unexpected, or what not.

Mr. Speaker: No, certainly not, but in the proper way and one cannot do it under a Prayer. If one wanted to do it I should have thought the simple way was to put down a Motion objecting to these powers. In my opinion that would have been the proper way of doing it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, Sir. We are most anxious to remain narrowly within your Ruling, because even within it I think we may have a most useful discussion. We have subsequently to go to a wider and more generous Parliamentary occasion, but the first occasion when this comes up for discussion is when the executive act is being taken under the Act, and it would be wrong if we did not bring to the notice of the House of Commons what we are doing tonight.
In the earlier debate the Lord President of the Council spoke at some length of the desirability of the procedure as enabling him to change ministerial titles, and deplored the new titles. On this occasion I think the Government have been responsible for a very poor title. I do not think that the title in this order,
The Minister of Local Government and Planning.
has worked out very well. To begin with I do not think that "Minister of Local Government" is a very good term. It would be very much better to say "Minister for Local Government." Also, as the words "Town and Country" are being left out, this is left as the only planning Ministry in the whole Government and that seems a bit of a reflection on the others, as it seems to suggest that it is the only Ministry which is taking thought for tomorrow, what it shall eat, what it shall drink and wherewithal it shall be clothed. The Biblical stricture there, was not meant to apply to the Government and this stricture is one which I do not think the other Ministers generally deserve.
I can imagine, as we all can, that even in peace-time periods of intense Parliamentary pressure, where events themselves would compel a very hasty procedure, there might be a legitimate use of such steps as these. But no one can contend


that conditions such as that exist now. Parliament is almost looking for work and leisurely progress is being made on Bills such as the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill or the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill which is more reminiscent of the fish moving languidly downstream after spawning than an upward rush in eager anticipation of every kind of fulfilment. No, I do not think urgency can be pleaded.
A highly technical Measure where public consideration cannot really help might be an occasion for the use of these powers, but the mere recitation of the functions we are discussing shows how desirable it is to have a wider discussion, such as I hope we shall be able to have at a later date. But we discuss these things now under narrow limits and we are about to discuss the transfer of functions of local government, of rating, of valuation, of public health, of housing and of rent control. These are things which intimately touch the daily lives of every one of us and I have named only a few.
Some of these matters are overdue for attention and I would ask the Government, first, if it is their belief that by this procedure these matters will be attended to more speedily. Does the Minister hope, for instance, that he will be able to give more immediate attention to the problem of rent control? The provisions of these statutes are admittedly chaotic and reminiscent of the jungle. If he can promise us that as a result of the steps he is now taking he will proceed to rapid dealing with these matters that would be a strong reason for the step he is now taking.
Is the progress of housing to be accelerated by this change? It is going from one Minister to another. Will this accelerate the progress of housing or cheapen the cost? If he can say that, I am sure the House will be very greatly indebted to him. Then there is the problem of local government. The innumerable changes which are necessary to keep even the boundaries of local authorities responsive to the changes have been frozen. Are these to be thawed? Is it possible that this will enable a loosening up of that very tight freeze which was intimated by the Minister of Health when we previously discussed these matters? Is that to be loosened?
Those are among the things which obviously must be in the mind of the Government when taking this step. Because they are not taking it simply for the purpose of carrying some powers from one Department and putting them in another. Nor would I for a moment suggest that it was for the purpose of internal agreement or the arrangement of powerful Ministers. It must be for the public good, and we are anxious to know what is the aspect of public good which the Minister thinks will be most forwarded by the step he is now taking.
The Minister of Health was, so to speak, the successor to the former President of the Local Government Board, and the former Minister of Health ruled over a domain rather like the old Empire of Austro-Hungary. It was amorphous and everyone criticised it. But, above all people, the Minister of Local Government and Planning would agree that when it was abolished, or, rather, dismembered, it was found that the new boundaries were just as inconvenient as the old. They were not all transferred. Austria was left. Even so, the re-distribution was widely criticised; it was widely contended that the leaving of the old Austria was the leaving of a head without a body.
I would not suggest that that comparison applies in the case of the new Minister, but I think he finds himself ruling over a domain substantially diminished. I think that for him and his able Parliamentary Secretary this "load shedding" has resulted in leaving these powerful dynamos spinning in the air. Either they are capable of absorbing a great deal more work or else they have been very over-worked in the past; and in the case of the present Parliamentary Secretary of the former Minister of Health none of us could find signs of the crushed and broken man which one would have expected in such circumstance.
It sounds a very reasonable thing to say, "Let health be health. What has it to do with local government or housing?" But immediately the tuberculosis services rise everywhere and say, "Housing and tuberculosis are so closely connected that a positive sputum is almost the only passport to rapid re-housing."

Mr. Messer: And not always that.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: And not always that, but I am sure the hon. Member will


not deny that the curative services are closely linked with the preventive services and will remain so linked. This divides them to some extent.
I am speaking as to whether this Order should remain in force or whether it should be annulled. As the Lord President will know better than any other, this is a very old history. It goes back to 1834 when the Chadwick Reports were coming out. They led to the first Board of Health. It was set up in 1848, but because it was not in close touch with the public and with Parliament its powers were stripped from it in 1854. In 1858 it was subject to exactly the same sort of reorganisation as we are now discussing, and the powers divided between the Home Office and the Privy Council—both of them offices which the Lord President has held in his time.
That did not get rid of the problem. Back came the epidemics. There was a Royal Commission in 1868 and the great Act of 1871 and that founded the Local Government Board once more with health powers. Again, in 1919, the Ministry of Health added to the preventive powers the actual care of sickness under the National Insurance Act, 1911. It was the work of great civil servants and. if I may say so, of great statesmen. It was the work of the late Mr. Lloyd George; it was the work of the present Lord Addison; it was the work of Lord Rhondda and great civil servants such as Morant. It is very interesting to note that Morant said at the time that the advocates of a special ad hoc body for health work laid too much stress on treatment to the neglect of preventive medicine. We are moving along that road tonight. Let us beware, and take note of the advice given us by great men in the past.
Morant wanted the body responsible for the treatment of disease to be the same as the body responsible for preventing it. It may be that under pressure of work this severance has to be made, but it is the severance of two things which naturally go together, and it is a severance fraught with danger. How does the Minister propose, under this set-up, to ensure a connection between those two sides of the treatment of a sick person or of a person who may

be sick? As I pointed out in that short historical sketch, this problem has recurred for more than a century. When we have dealt with them by dividing them we have been forced to bring these powers together again.
The care of the sick is now, for the first time for many years, out of the Cabinet. Even the Haldane Committee, when it suggested 10 main divisions of Government, named health as one of them; but, as a result of this Order which we are now passing, health—let us face it—becomes a Ministry of the second rank. That is recognised by the fact that it is dropped from the Cabinet. Or rather, it is not entirely dropped. Scottish health is left in the Cabinet; English health is left out. That may be satisfactory or it may not, but these are points which I think the Minister should explain when he is justifying this Order to the House.
Health is, of course, to some extent connected also with the Welsh Board of Health. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has had some talk with the Welsh Members and we shall be glad to have it on record so far as this House is concerned. He was good enough to give me some indication of the conversations he had had; and I gather that the head of the Welsh Board of Health will be, so to speak, a dual purpose officer and responsible for two Ministers. I have had some experience of this and we have had this tried before. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health shared a dual purpose officer in Newman, but I cannot say that it was always entirely satisfactory.
In fact, we are drawing a new frontier across an indefinite region and I do not deny that wherever we put the frontier there will be some difficulty. But this is an attempt to draw a new frontier, and that is why we ask the House tonight to consider it from the point of view of a review, an investigation. We are not asking them to come to a decision as to what should be the actual frontier which is to be drawn, because there is another whole kingdom, the proper use of land which was the raison d'etre for the setup of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning of which the right hon. Gentleman was previously the head.
I do not need to stress, nor does anybody, the enormous importance of the


right use of land in this tiny island, where it is continually being encroached on for one purpose or another; and where, for the purposes of agriculture the use of land is becoming of ever greater importance every year, one might almost say every month that passes.
There is certainly, among my hon. Friends, uneasiness about the change which is being made here. Town and Country Planning was formerly in the Ministry of Health, but it was taken out. The purpose, as I understood it at the time, was that it was to be an arbitrator. Now it is taken down from the bench and it is put at the bar. Another place is accustomed to the Lord Chancellor stepping away from the Woolsack and joining in its debates, sometimes taking a strong partisan line; but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is not our practice in this House, and that it might lead to uneasiness about the exact position of Mr. Speaker when he was giving a delicate Ruling.
Agriculture is now outside, and housing is inside. It may well be that this can be worked, but it will require careful adjustment. The disappearance of the Minister from the position of an arbiter, and his appearance as the Minister responsible for great executive action such as is implicit in the housing programme, will undoubtedly lead to a certain feeling of uneasiness on the part of agriculturists. Of course, it may lead to uneasiness the other way round. Some of my hon. Friends thought that, previously, housing received rather cavalier treatment. I should have thought that the position of Town and Country Planning in the new set-up will be rather difficult.
The next point is that inevitably there has been a profound upheaval. Only those who have worked inside these great Departments know how profound the upheaval is when a redistribution of functions takes place with a re-grading of great civil servants. Until the tool is made the work cannot proceed, and the tool is now being made again. Like Siegfried's sword, it has been smashed up and is now being forged again; but that takes up quite a part of the opera. Until this has been done, there is no suggestion that Siegfried is going out to look for dragons or anything else. Sir William Douglas, a great civil servant with whom I have worked in more than one office,

is, we are told, to retire at a date to be announced as soon as the arrangements for the reconstitution of the Ministry of Health have been completed. Can the Minister tell us when that will be? The official announcement has been give out, so that it must be envisaged at a comparatively early date. Until these arrangements for the reconstitution of the Ministry of Health have been completed, it is impossible for administration to proceed with that vigorous and clockwork smoothness which is such a feature of our Civil Service.
Local government has been stripped of a number of its powers on previous occasions, and we are anxious to know how it will stand under the new set-up. It lost health powers under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and it has lost police, fire service, electricity, gas and public assistance. All these functions have been removed from it. We fear lest it will slip into a secondary place here. Again, we ask whether the Minister can tonight give some assurance that, at a fairly early date, some adumbration will be given by the Government of their intentions towards local government and that their attitude towards the problem of the reform of local government will be laid before the House.
These are matters which cut across party lines. I do not go so far as the previous Minister of Health, who said that under present conditions no Minister of Health would bring forward any proposals for local government reform unless he was prepared to enter into a long exile in foreign parts. Naturally, that is the last thing that the Minister of Health wished, and he did not bring forward any such proposals. But under this new set-up perhaps it will be possible. Or is it likely that local government will continue to slip away from the many, many problems which are now becoming so urgent as to brook no great delay?
The recent rise in the rates is a very disquieting fact, and whoever is in charge of the forthcoming valuation will find it a problem fraught with political danger to those nominally responsible for it. I notice that the Government have looked the matter boldly in the face and passed by on the other side for the time being. I trust that it will be possible for the Minister to give some indication as to how soon it might be possible for some


advance to be made towards the problem of the reform of local government. How soon may that be expected?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will get me ruled out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will leave that entirely to the Chair. I should not think that the Chair would be harsh upon a Minister seeking to grapple with a problem obviously of such interest to all concerned. The terms of this Order are certainly succinct enough. Here is an Order which says that it was made on 29th January, 1951; laid before Parliament on 29th January. 1951; and is coming into operation on 30th January, 1951. Nobody believes that it is so operating. This is a problem on which public opinion demands to have some say. The House itself, by its debate tonight, will mould the character of the reforms which are taking place.
This is the sort of problem where the opinion of everyone is of interest and, it may be, of great importance. As previous history has shown, unless one can carry the public with one, the machine by itself cannot carry out the duties which are laid upon it. I would say that these changes represent an endeavour towards the reorganisation of what I might call home affairs. In that reorganisation we consider that free discussion should, and must, play a vital part. The argument is not nearly at its end. We do not wish to try to stifle it here at its beginning.
For that reason, I hope that we shall have not only as wide a debate as the rules of order permit, but that none of us will feel himself fettered by party lines. Tonight the House is an anvil, not an arena. It is hammering out new problems, and I trust that it will look upon itself, I will not say as a Council of State, but as an assembly of honest workmen trying to do their best to improve the position of one of the great achievements of our people—the achievement of local government and the great services which have been part of local government for so many years. I trust that the Minister will be able to give the House a lead on these matters tonight, for certainly, so far, the House and the country are still considerably in the dark about what is

to be done, or what is intended to be done, by the changes set out in this Order. 7.50 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I am sure that the House will agree that the speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was very interesting. I am not sure that we got a lot of information from it, but it was interesting because it called upon the Minister to give us more information, and I join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in wanting satisfaction myself about certain of these services.
I suppose every reasonable man will agree, that the wide expansion of services has thrown upon the Ministry of Health an immense amount of work. The amount of work which that Department has been called upon to do since the days of the Local Government Board is perhaps the reason why some of us feel that it would be in the interests of the country if there was a division of functions. There is, however, as outlined in this Order, a division of functions which requires some explanation, so as to give assurance to those of us who are fearful of what the consequences may be.
In that connection, I want to say a word or two about what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said as to the value of the preventive health services. I hold the view that we cannot have an efficient health service unless it is a unified service, and, under this Order, we see that the services referred to in Part V of the Act of 1936 will remain under the Ministry of Health, but that the public health services will go to the new Ministry of Local Government and Planning.

Mr. H. Morrison: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to say what is in his mind when he mentions public health services?

Mr. Messer: Yes. In the Explanatory Note, there is reference to local government, rating and valuation and to public health, and, obviously, that refers to the sanitary services. If that question is addressed to me, it surely means that there is need for explanation. As I understand the Explanatory Note, the public health services are to be transferred to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. I am most anxious that there shall not be a wider division


than already exists between the health services, because, reverting to what I have said, a unified service can be brought about, even though sections of that service should be under different administration. But there is a grave danger unless, by some machinery, those sections of the service are brought together.
The National Health Service Act took away from local authorities what may be termed the positive health services. Local authorities were responsible for the preventive service, they were responsible for the curative and remedial services, and for after-care and rehabilitation. Now, there has been a division, and, unfortunately, experience appears to indicate that the gap which exists is detrimental to the interests of the people. If the new Ministry of Health will, as is shown, concentrate its attention on the new Health Service, what I would like to ask, and receive an assurance upon, is whether it will place an undue emphasis on the curative and remedial services. There is a danger of thinking that that which is sensational is, of necessity, of the greatest importance. Personally, I would not like to say which is the most important of the three divisions of the Health Service, but, by virtue of there being these divisions, I can see the possibility of the gap which already exists being made yet wider.
I have no desire to detain the House with a long speech on this subject, and I have not arrived at a conclusion on whether the division which is going to take place, is the best that could have been done. I am certain that some of the functions of the Ministry of Health should, quite rightly, be taken from it, and it may be that it is right that there should be this new Ministry of Local Government and Planning, but I am anxious to get an assurance that, in regard to the National Health Service, a situation will not develop in which there are different Ministries to which the local government units will be responsible.
At one time, the local authority went to the Ministry of Health for all things, even the sanctioning of a loan for purposes other than health. It was the Ministry of Health, not the Ministry of Education, to which the local authority went when they wanted to raise a loan for education. Apparently, there is now

to be a position in which a local authority—I wonder whether the Front Benches realise that there are microphones in the House? If they did, they would know that an hon. Member may be trying to speak, hoping that he will be heard, but with the knowledge that others, who are not on their feet, are being heard. I am only desirous of getting satisfaction on points which I believe to be of importance. I have referred to the most important of them, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the assurance which I seek.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton): I share the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) on certain parts of this Order. It would appear that it has been taken at very great speed. It is quite clear from the way in which it was made and laid and has come into operation that the Government were doing something hastily, no doubt, for very good reasons which do not appear on the face of the Order.
I want to confine my apprehensions to one matter which has been touched upon by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) dealing with the control of the use of land. I believe this is a major problem in this country today, and I fear that this Order will make that problem very much worse. If I may just acquaint the House of the facts of the situation, I would point out that the Scott Report stated that between 1927 and 1939, there was a loss of good agricultural land to development of 800,000 acres. On page 35, the Scott Report went on to say that during the war period that loss had increased very rapidly.
Looking at the later figures, we get from the Monthly Digest of Statistics the fact that between 1939 and 1951—in those 12 years—the acreage of agricultural land has gone down by 500,000, and another factor which we find, and which always strikes me as being very remarkable, is that in the same 12 years the area of rough grazing has increased by 500,000 acres. It is quite clear that both the wartime Coalition Government, the "Caretaker" Government and the present Government have of necessity made great efforts to bring every acre of useless land into agricultural production.
Therefore, when we see the total acreage of rough grazing going up by 500,000, it does not mean that the farmers have allowed land to go into rough grazing, but that the land-grabbing Departments have taken good agricultural land and the farmers, by their industry, have won over from waste land that amount to agricultural land. Therefore, between 1939 and 1951, in fact, there has been a loss of good agricultural land extending to one million acres. Therefore, under the present set up we have lost 1,800,000 acres since 1927. That in a small island is, I believe, a very serious problem for hon. Members of all parties in the House, whether they be interested in agriculture or industry.
What was the set-up for dealing with this matter up to 29th January? Up till then we had the position where there were, in effect, seven land-grabbing Departments. There was the Ministry of Health, which was taking land for housing, water and burial grounds; the Board of Trade, which was taking land for industry; the Ministry of Education, which was taking land for schools; the Ministry of Fuel and Power, which was raping land for opencast coal; and there were the three Service Ministries which were taking land in very large quantities for purposes of defence.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend's catalogue is surely not quite complete? He has omitted the Ministry of Works, which is one of the greatest land-acquiring Departments, and also the Post Office, which has had compulsory powers of acquisition for a very long time.

Mr. Turton: I could, of course, go through the whole catalogue of the Ministries, but I was merely giving the seven main grabbing Departments. The Ministry of Works is very much like a barrister or a solicitor, grabbing land for other parties and not for itself.
We have seven land-grabbing Departments and one land-saving Department, the Ministry of Agriculture. Up to 29th January, we had an arbiter in the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who had to judge the case of the land grabber and of the land saver. It is quite true that, at times, he himself was a land grabber—and no mean land grabber—in the matter

of the new towns. That was a weakness of the old set-up, but that was really on a par with the case of a judge hearing a cause of trespass in pursuit of development on five days in the week and merely going poaching himself one day in the week. But we have now the position where he will no longer be the unbiased arbiter, for by taking over the Ministry of Health powers concerning housing, water, sewerage and burial grounds, he himself will be doing poaching five days a week and sitting as a judge on the sixth day. I regard that as highly unsatisfactory.
I should like to quote in defence of my argument the words of the present Minister of Local Government and Planning in a very well known circular, which has a very doctoral look about it. It is No. 99. Hon. Members will remember that it came out in November. In paragraph 4, it says:
Development and agriculture are inevitably competitors for land, and land which is good agriculturally is often the most suitable for building. But planning and development, though popularly confused, are not the same thing. It is a planner's job to, try and reconcile the conflicting demands of building and agriculture.
The difficulty facing the right hon. Gentleman today is that he cannot adequately reconcile the conflicting claims of building and agriculture because he himself is going to be responsible for building. Therefore, I would urge the Lord President to reconsider this question of the control of the use of land. None of us was satisfied with the set-up till 29th January, but we are now very much more dissatisfied, and it is vital when we have the present claims of re-armament and have to prepare this country for an emergency, that we should have a machinery whereunder good agricultural land is not stolen for other uses.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has, in my opinion, raised a very important question which deserves the attention of the Government. The rate at which agricultural land, in particular, has been absorbed for other purposes in the last few years should, I think, be a matter for concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House. We have considered this Order with some care, and in


our opinion it should make for a substantial improvement in the administrative efficiency of the Government Departments concerned.
I gathered the impression from the Press that there was to be a major challenge to the Government on this matter tonight. If I now understand the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) aright, it is not the intention of the Opposition to divide on the Motion.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Would the hon. Gentleman say to what section of the Press he is referring?

Mr. Roberts: It was in several sections of the Press, including the Conservative section. As I say, I now understand that the intention to divide on the Motion has been forsaken by the Opposition.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it is a little unfortunate that the hon. Member should devote his time to mind-reading and speculation of this kind. There was never any intention to divide, and I am sure that my speech could not be regarded as anything but a sincere effort to probe the matter.

Mr. Roberts: That is the first indication which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given of the intention of the Opposition.
On the whole, I think the Government are right to proceed by Order rather than by Act of Parliament in this matter, although I should have preferred the kind of Order which requires positive approval beforehand. I understand, however, that under the enabling Act of 1946, the procedure authorised is the one adopted in this case. It has been emphasised from above the Gangway that once the Government make up their mind, once they are satisfied that this is an efficient arrangement, speed is essential because the matters with which these two Government Departments are concerned, particularly housing, touch the people of this country so intimately that it would be wrong for there to be any prolonged uncertainty and hiatus between the two Departments. I hope, therefore, that the Government will push ahead with the

arrangements as quickly as possible, because it cannot be for the good of the housing programme that the civil servants employed on it should, as it were, be in a state of transition between the two Ministries.
On the whole, I think it will make for more effective and efficient administration if housing and local government are taken over by the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. The Minister of Health has almost a full-time job in looking after the National Health Service. An hon. Member opposite has said that certain functions under the Public Health Acts are apparently also to be transferred to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. I think he will find if he looks at those Public Health Acts that they are functions concerned with such things as dangerous structures and matters of that nature, and not health functions in the strict sense of the word.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove referred to the position in Wales, and I was glad that he did so. The Minister of Local Government and Planning was good enough to have a discussion with the Welsh Parliamentary Party on this point, as a result of which I think a large measure of agreement was arrived at. But now that this Order has been brought before the House it is right that the Minister who is to reply should deal with the special position of Wales. The Ministry of Health Act, 1919, provided that a special board might be set up to deal with health matters in Wales. After this Order has come into operation, strictly speaking that Welsh Board of Health will only be concerned with the functions of the new Ministry of Health.
The Ministry of Town and Country Planning also had a regional office in Wales with a controller in charge. I now understand that there is to be one senior official in charge of the offices of both Ministries in Wales, and that the officials will be responsible direct to the Ministries in London. Perhaps I shall be corrected if that is not so. It would be of value if in due course we could have from the Minister an assurance that the officer in charge of these Departments in Wales will have direct access to the Ministers in London, and that his responsibility will be similar in many respects to that of the Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Department of the Ministry of Education.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council showed a coy reluctance to trespass beyond the confines of Order in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and I do not think I am likely to be more successful in persuading him to give the Government's views on the wider situation brought about by this transfer of powers. But may I put it to him in this way? I think that the reaction among people concerned in local government—the reaction possibly in the Departments themselves—will be much more favourable towards these proposals if they are satisfied that they are the result of a considered and concerted policy for reforming the administration of the social services.
I should like to put to the Government some general questions as well as some particular ones about the implications of these proposals. I should like to consider the matter from the point of view of the Ministry itself. No Government Department, I imagine, is ever likely to resist very firmly the accretion of empire, and one can understand that from the point of view of the Ministry this may seem superficially a very satisfactory arrangement. But I have some misgivings which I should like to put to the Minister in the hope that he can assure me that my fears are quite wrong.
When the Ministry of Town and Country Planning was established, the present Lord Chancellor, who was then Minister without Portfolio, put forward three reasons why the Coalition Government wished to establish the Ministry. The first reason was that town and country planning should have the whole-time services of a front rank Minister. I think we can be quite satisfied that in that respect, at any rate, this proposal is a very happy one. The Minister of Local Government and Planning is a front rank Minister. Indeed, he might also be said, if it were possible, to be a few steps ahead of a front rank Minister. No one can doubt the vigour and energy with which he will attack these problems. The next reason put forward was that town and country planning was essentially a job which required the full time activities of one Minister. The present Lord Chancellor said:
It is, we are satisfied, physically impossible for any Minister already busily engaged in

other directions to devote the necessary time and attention which, it is obvious to us from experience, this subject demands."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 26th January, 1943; Vol. 386, c. 418.]
The first question I should like to put is this. What has happened during the past eight years to make the Government change their minds that town and country planning can now be carried out in conjunction with what is one of the major administrative problems in the social services—the housing programme—and, in addition to that, the complicated and difficult problems of dealing with local government? Does it mean that the Government have ceased to believe that town and country planning can be made sufficiently realistic to be a whole-time job? If that is the reason I must say it fills me with very great dismay.
The third reason that was put forward for having a Ministry was that it should be an impartial, objective Department, able to look at the competing claims not only for land, which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) but also for other functions such as the location of indus, tries and new towns, and matters of planning and development. I am left wondering how the Minister of Local Government and Planning will be able to do those things if he himself is one of the major competitors for the use of land and for obtaining resources and materials.
I should like to quote an analogy from a field about which I know nothing, and that is the military field. These words were uttered in this House:
It is against all good rules of organisation that a man who is in charge of major strategy should also be in command of a particular unit. It is like having a man commanding an army in the field and also commanding a division. He has a divided interest between the wider questions of strategy and the problems affecting his own immediate command."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1092.]
Those are the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, criticising the accretion of certain powers in 1940 to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. I am not in a position to judge whether the criticism was a good one or not, but it is relevant to the social services.
With the competition that there is between the different social services for the


comparatively small resources available for their development, it is important that there should be somebody in a position to look at the broad strategy of the social services and not be immersed in the problems affecting his own immediate command. I hope it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to say something about how the Government think it will work out.
Coming to the question of the actual transfer of functions, I found some difficulty. Take for example one point—the question of bylaws. As I understand, under the present Order, the approval of bylaws under the Public Health Acts is going to be the function of the Minister of Health. The approval of bylaws under the Housing Acts dealing with very similar problems, and in some cases employing very similar language, is to be the function of the Minister of Local Government and Planning. It seems to me that from the point of view of local government it would be very difficult to ensure that those bylaws dovetail with each other, but they are part of the instruments at the command of the local authority, which is trying to maintain the general standard of housing in its neighbourhood.
I should like to ask whether there is not the risk there of a lack of liaison between the two Departments? When my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) says that the Order means something I am inclined to think that it must mean that; in view of his great experience I do not like to correct him. But my reading of the Order, while not so wide as that as of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), is wider than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham. As I see it, sanitary powers in general, such as the appointment of medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors, are to be left with the Ministry of Health.
But there are a number of marginal local government functions which are to be separated, which seem to create difficult problems of control. Take the question of water pollution, not river pollution but the actual pollution of the water supply which I should have thought was intimately bound up with the other problems of environmental health which have been mentioned in this debate. As I see it, the powers of Part IV of the Public

Health Act, 1936, which deals with water pollution, are not reserved to the Ministry of Health but are to go to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. We should have some assurance that the Ministry of Local Government and Planning will have the same kind of expert medical assistance and advice which the Minister of Health has long had and will presumably have to continue to receive in view of the calls upon it in relation to the health services.
To look at the matter from the point of view of the Ministry of Health, it has been said that that Ministry has had too much work to do in the past. I think everybody would agree that that is so. It is also possible and also broadly true that "Satan finds some mischief still for an idle Minister to do." There is a danger that the Ministry in its present form, may find itself with too little to do and that in particular it will have a temptation to interfere with the delegation of the hospital and health services' administration to the regional boards and the Executive Council, which is contrary to the spirit of the National Health Service Act. I was rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham did not make that point.

Mr. Messer: I intended to do so, but I was interrupted.

Mr. MacColl: I am glad that I have been able in a humble way to assist an hon. Friend for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. It seems to me that there is a risk that the Ministry of Health will feel that as they have nothing much else to do except exercise their powers in respect of the National Health Service they will be tempted into greater interference through the medium of those powers.
I should like to know whether the Government have considered combining with the National Health Service the functions of the Ministry of National Insurance in order that there can be one welfare Department dealing with those functions which are already very largely delegated to the Assistance Board and the regional hospital boards? I ask the Government, why, when transferring financial control from the Ministry of Health, they did not transfer it to the Treasury instead of to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning? I have


seen this working from the point of view of a new town corporation negotiating with the Ministry of Local Government and Planning and from the point of view of a local authority negotiating with the Ministry of Health. There is nothing more irritating than to be involved in financial wrangles with a Government Department when all the time the corporation or the local authority feels it is the Treasury which is the effective instrument of control. It would be better if the Government recognised the fact candidly, and left questions such as loan sanctions and audits in the hands of the Treasury.
When transferring powers, I wish the Government had considered transferring the Registrar-General. Leaving him under the Minister of Health will make his function even more exclusively medical than it is at present. My great criticism of the Registrar-General is that he ought to be much more widely a social statistician than he is. This decision will make him draw back into his shell and limit himself to infectious diseases and other vital statistics instead of acting as he should, in conjunction with or as part of the Central Statistical Office.
I put these points to the Government. They are points which a Government, looking at the problem of co-ordinating all our social services should be thinking about when they come to the House with an Order of this kind. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism because I do not offer any final answer to these questions. They are the difficulties and doubts which are held by people in local government and in the country generally. In general, I think that the idea of separating housing from the other health services is a good one, and had there been any question of a Division tonight I should certainly have supported the Government. But as we are having a friendly and amicable discussion of these problems, in a non-party way, it is a suitable and convenient time to put to the Government some rather awkward questions which one would have felt embarrassed to do had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove been in his usual truculent mood.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Molson: To see the way in which the Department chiefly

concerned with this Order has gradually developed we have to bear in mind that it was originally the Presidency of the Local Government Board. It would be true to say that throughout all its changes of direction the general supervision of local government in this country has been its most important function. I hope that the new Department will continue to regard the sympathetic and careful supervision and guidance of local authorities as being the most important function which it has to discharge.
It is only in the last 30 years that the responsibility for housing has come to weigh far more heavily upon the Department. I think that it would be generally agreed in all parts of the House that the Ministry of Health has become too large for its satisfactory administration by any single Minister, and when, recently, the creation of the National Health Service resulted in imposing upon that Department an entirely new function of administration it was surely clear that the time had come when some partition of that great and overgrown Ministry was due.
That appeared to be happening in the case of that Department. There had been—just a short time ago—the creation of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning for the reasons which were given by, I think, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). That Ministry being made responsible for the most satisfactory use of the limited land of this small island was, in fact, at the same time deprived of control over the location of new housing estates. It was actually a function of the Ministry of Health, and some of my hon. Friends and I felt that it was quite impossible for the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to discharge its responsibilities satisfactorily as long as a more powerful Ministry was able to put the new housing, estates wherever it wished to do so.
Therefore, for some time we have believed that it is desirable that the Minister responsible for town planning should also be made responsible for the planning of new housing estates that are planned and built by the local authorities. Indeed, historically there was much to be said for bringing this function back under the control of the same Minister, because in so far as there had been town and country planning—and there had been before the


passing of the 1944 Act—it had, of course, been the responsibility of the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): And of the Local Government Board before that.

Mr. Molson: Yes, and of the Local Government Board before that, as the right hon. Gentleman reminds me. Naturally, I had great sympathy with the apprehensions that have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) lest there should be the danger to agriculture that it will tend to suffer more even than it has done in the past, but I doubt very much whether that will be the case. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning was a new Ministry, a small Ministry; and it is known to every hon. Member in the House that the old, large and powerful Departments exercise greater influence in the counsels of any Government than those that are small and new.
As one who is anxious that town and country planning shall be well managed in this country, I welcome the change which is now being made, and I do so for two reasons. I do not think that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning was large enough and powerful enough to act as an effective arbiter if a dispute arose between the Ministry of Agriculture and some other Department; and I also do not believe that, in a matter of this kind, planning of the use of the land of the country can satisfactorily be left in the hands of an impartial outsider.
I believe that the Minister who is bearing, at the same time, the responsibility for the housing of the people of the country and for the supply of adequate water will be able to take all those different considerations into account. I think that it is possible for one mind to take those considerations into account, and to act as a fair arbitor between different considerations for reasonable purposes—instead of having a different person, let alone a different Ministry, acting in each of those capacities.
I approach this Order in a spirit of general sympathy. At the same time, I am sure that the Lord President of the Council will agree that, where a number of closely related functions have for long been administered inside a single Depart-

ment it is difficult, certainly for any outsider, and possibly, at the present time, for those directly concerned, to know exactly where the dividing line can with greatest advantage be drawn, and I hope that the Lord President, when he replies to the debate, which, I hope, he will do shortly. [Laughter.] In the English language the word "shortly" has two different meanings. Either it may be "briefly and tersely," or it may be that the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to do so "without any further delay." What I meant to say was, that I hope that he will give an explanation of this Order, because it is quite likely that some hon. Members, like myself, will be wanting to ask questions, and if they know exactly how the Order is to function it will make it easier for them to make some observations upon it.
I should like to know why there is no reference to the immensely important responsibilities under the National Assistance Act, 1948. Under Part III of that Act every reference to "the Minister" means
the Minister of Health as respects England and Wales,
and these are all those responsibilities for the relief of the aged, and so on, which were retained at the time the other matters were transferred to the Assistance Board.
I have an uneasy feeling that some difficult anomalies may arise. It is has been mentioned to me that in the event of large-scale evacuation from London—and this is a subject with which the Lord President is extremely familiar, because of his former responsibility in this matter—under this Order the plans for the evacuation would be the responsibility of the Minister of Health, and the responsibility for rest centres, and so on, would be the responsibility of the Minister of Local Government and Planning. I hope that is not so, but it is merely one illustration of the difficulties which arise when a single Department is being partitioned, and I should be glad of some assurance from the Lord President that he is quite satisfied the dividing line has been drawn after adequate consideration, and that there will be as few of these unsatisfactory partitions as possible.
It is quite obvious, of course, that wherever the dividing line is drawn there will be some difficult cases which fall just


upon one or the other, and I make no complaint about that. But it is very important that not only general opinion in the country but also local authorities shall understand as soon as possible exactly where the divided responsibility will fall.
I am puzzled as to why this partition of the old Ministry of Health was timed to take place on 29th January, just at the end of the Parliamentary Recess. I should have thought it would have been of great advantage to all those concerned if this Order had been brought into operation several weeks earlier during a time of Parliamentary Recess, when the Departments were not being harassed by constant Parliamentary Questions and by business in the House. That it should have been timed to take place on the 29th January seems to me likely to have resulted in the maximum of inconvenience and disturbance.
If, for one moment, I may fall below the standard of detachment and objectivity with which I have so far been speaking, I wonder whether this Government of planners had really not thought of planning this matter at all, and whether it was only at the last moment that it was found convenient to carry out what perhaps had been a project in their minds for a long time. Generally speaking, I welcome the partition of the Ministry of Health, and I hope that we shall have an explanation which will show that the actual partition of the functions will be such as to enable each of the two Ministers to have a compact and well-defined sphere of functions which will be adequate to engage the activities of both those talented right hon. Gentlemen, and that neither of them will be unduly overworked.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I do not think that the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), in his speech, departed from that high standard of detachment and objectivity which he mentioned. I am glad that he has general sympathy with this Order, and that we have also had full praise from the representative of the Liberal Party who is present.
I wish, very quickly, to give the reasons why I support the Order, particularly because of an experience which I

had in the field of local government in my own constituency. The House will remember that a few weeks ago we had a debate on housing. I felt that it would be a good idea to call a conference of every local authority in my constituency, so that, instead of sloganising about housing, we could get together and discuss, free from party prejudice, ways and means to improve the rate of house building and how best to improve the general administrative efficiency of that particular service. At that conference, attended by a borough council, three urban district authorities and a large rural district council, we had an extremely interesting discussion.
We came to a general agreement that with regard to house planning and its rate of progress it was important to have complete co-operation between the regional office of the then Minister of Health and the county planning authority. We found from our experience in Cumberland that too often there was lack of co-operation; too often the local authority would get approval from the regional office of the Ministry of Health and the county planning authority would act as a stumbling block, and that frequently the plans of the local authority were seriously frustrated.
There was a general concensus of opinion that there should be a measure of co-operation between the Departments concerned and the local authorities, and I hope that the transference of functions of government under this Order, will secure co-operation to improve the progress and planning of house building. I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who opened the debate, and who, broadly, supported the Order, that we should seriously consider its application to house building and all the problems which are affected by our local government services.
I, too, would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) on the question of the health service. I think that on that matter, from indications given, he had the approval of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill). I hope that he will express his approval if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that there is a danger that we emphasise the more dramatic side of cure and prevention. We should think


in wider terms about prevention. That is why my hon. Friend, who has had a very long experience in the field of local government, stressed it, and I am certain that he had the approval of the House.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove touched upon a most important problem—a matter which I raised on several occasions in the last Parliament. I refer to the reform of local government. I know that I shall not be allowed to go too far in examining the arguments for and against, but I think that there is general agreement on all sides of the House that reform of local government is urgent and long overdue. It was admitted in a previous debate by the last Minister of Health.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Why did not the hon. Gentleman's Government do it?

Mr. Peart: I do not think that in the circumstances any Minister could have brought in a Bill to reform local authorities during the last Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We should certainly have set up a Royal Commission, and I advocated one for London, and one for England and Wales. I believe we can all agree that, in principle, local government reform is long overdue—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is going far beyond this Order.

Mr. Peart: I am sorry, Sir, but I was drawn into this argument.
I merely stress the point made by hon. Members opposite, that the new functions of the Ministry created by this Order will be concerned with this very urgent problem. I hope and trust that the new Minister now responsible for planning, with his drive, energy and enthusiasm, will be able to tackle this problem. I believe that it was essential to take this initial step and to have this re-arrangement of functions for better administrative efficiency. If, as the result of this Order, this new administrative set-up can tackle this problem the House will bless the responsible Minister. I am glad that there is general agreement tonight. The Order should improve the efficiency of both local and national government.

8.47 p.m.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred in the earlier part of his speech to the local implications of this Order, and rightly so. It is important that it should be appreciated that the effect of this Order is at the centre; that it does not of itself make any change in the organisation of the local authority or in the relationship of its services or offices, one to another. Some, no doubt, will issue a warning of what might one day follow, but at the moment it is a central transfer between Departments, and that only.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) delivered himself of many strange and novel statements, none stranger than his sentence that the Ministry of Health has not very much to do apart from the National Health Service. I confess at the outset that, so far as the Ministry of Health is concerned, this relief is long overdue. I believe that today the National Health Service represents something which will tax the resources of a Ministry and a Minister.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member is really hurting my feelings. I had the pleasure of a chat with him somewhere else on this problem, and he rebuked me very strongly for not realising sufficiently that the National Health Service was over-centralised in the Ministry. He was in favour of the National Health Service being more local. I learned my lesson, and now he is rebuking me.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member must not be too indignant at a mild rebuke directed to his remark that the Ministry of Health has not very much to do apart from the National Health Service. I shall not follow the red herring he presents to me as to the form of organisation of the National Health Service and decentralisation which might at other times be suggested, nor shall I allow myself to be diverted by the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan).
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who speaks with authority and with the full respect of both sides of this House on the subject of health and the health services, took as his theme that we must preserve the unity of the health services, curative and preventive. He examined this Order in the light of that


principle. I believe we should do that. When we examine the explanatory note of the list of functions that are to be removed from the Ministry of Health, there will, I think, be general agreement that some of them are too thinly related to health, if at all.
I pass lightly over the delicate subject of the relationship of burials to health. I do not suggest that the field of coast protection is a necessary part of a health service or a health conception. Then there is rent control and housing. Although it can be fairly argued that housing is an important factor in the maintenance of health and the prevention of disease, at the same time it is the production of houses which is primarily the problem. The health aspect of houses coming into the picture in relation to standards of design. House-building need not remain a function of the Ministry of Health, It has been the pressure of its local government activities for many years which has tended to divert the attention of the Ministry of Health from its primary health functions. Indeed, I hope that the transfer of local government to another Minister may lead to a new and more flexible attitude not only to the problem of local government reform in general, but to the particular claims of the borough of Luton.
When I examine the public health functions which remain and those which go. I find myself unable to accept the general melancholy assessment of the hon. Member for Tottenham, and equally unable to accept the point made by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), which was that it was just a question of dangerous structures. When one examines the various functions it is reassuring that supervision of work in infectious disease, maternity and child welfare, notification of births, qualifications of officers and all such matters remain under the aegis of the Ministry of Health.
It is when—here I want to examine the Order critically—one examines the functions which go, that one meets considerations which should lead to a reconsideration of the position. So far as the majority are concerned, it is right that they should go. Sewerage, and sewage disposal, building and sanitation bylaws, water supplies, wash houses, canal boats, tents, the sanitary problems of hop

pickers—these have become largely engineering functions. Others are closer to health and should remain with the Ministry of Health.
There are a few functions—and I have deliberately selected those which seem most to support my point—about which there can be and should be some reasonable doubt. It is provided that the function—or perhaps, to be more accurate, such advisory functions as are exercised at the centre over the local authorities for this purpose—in relation to the nuisance discovery and action by local officers, is being transferred to the new Ministry. Remember that the words which are used are:
In respect of nuisances in premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health.
I have no doubt that the work of discovering nuisances and of taking the necessary action will remain where it is today, but should it become necessary in the future, or should it be thought necessary, to issue any central directive or advice on that subject, it will be issued by the new and not by the old Ministry.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Widnes raised the point that we are contemplating a Ministry which, if it is to do its work properly, will need a medical staff. Yet I hope that this Ministry will not be provided with a medical staff. There is too much dispersal of medical staff already in the public service. At the same time it adds weight to my point that it is wrong to transfer to a Ministry without medical advice the supervision of such local activities, which are, in some part, medical in character.

Dr. Morgan: If the hon. Member's scheme should be adopted, how are we to get uniformity of health administration in the country, with one Department doing this minor health work, as the hon. Member calls it, and another one dealing with proper health administration from the point of view of environment and disease? The position is impossible.

Dr. Hill: If the hon. Member will contain himself a little longer I shall answer his point in the course of my remarks.
Another point is the activity of local officers in relation to verminous persons. [Laughter.] I resist any attempt to proceed along a familiar line. The care and the cure of verminous persons is unfor-


tunately, essentially a health activity. There may have been some microscopic science, but in the past it has been no kind of engineering consideration. Most of this work has generally fallen within the scope and the practice of the school medical service. It would be a new situation if the Minister of the new Department, with the aid of imagination as a substitute for medical science, could issue suggestions, directives, advice or details of new procedures to be followed in respect of that problem of cleanliness.
There is just one other illustration I want to give. It relates to the supervision and provision of sanitary conveniences in shops and offices. At this moment, all this is a general public health problem, as was shown in the debate a short time ago. That form of provision has become an urgent public health need. The responsibility for that is to pass to the new Ministry unspoiled by medical staff and untroubled by medical advice.
I now pass to the point put to me by the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan). With the general proposition of making the Health Ministry a Health Ministry dealing with problems that it can conveniently and efficiently encompass I am in full agreement, but my regret is that there is still a dispersal of medical personnel and medical functions throughout the Departments. This was an opportunity to bring within the scope of the Ministry of Health the industrial health service. This was the opportunity to bring within its scope that part of the Ministry of Food which is essentially Health education. This was an opportunity to gather up medical services and concentrate them in one Ministry, staffed as this one is, by an efficient medical service. It is a pity that this proposal has stopped where it is. It would have been wiser to take advantage of this change—in general, a change of which I approve—to do something bigger in the concentration of health functions in one Health Ministry.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Donnelly: I apologise to the House and to the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut. Colonel Elliot) for having unavoidably been unable to hear the first part of his remarks. I shall therefore confine myself to four brief points. I would first say how glad I am that the hon. Member for

Luton (Dr. Hill), who is something of a Jekyll and Hyde character, emerged tonight as Dr. Jekyll instead of Mr. Hyde. I am not always in agreement with him, but I am glad that he took up the cudgels with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) about the remark that the Minister of Health has nothing else to do but administer the Health Service.
I know that the hon. Member for Luton speaks with great knowledge because of the time he and his friends took up with the then Minister of Health in the last Parliament, and I should think that one of the greatest problems that the Minister of Health has to face, in addition to the Health Service, is dealing with the doctors themselves. My right hon. Friend has everybody's sympathy in that because it is a very onerous and full-time job.
I want to join those who welcome the combination of the housing and planning functions of the two former Ministries of Town and Country Planning and Health. I again disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes when he says that there is a danger of conflict between the tactical and strategic interests in housing of the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. I always regarded my right hon. Friend's ministerial functions in dealing with housing as strategic and the actual tactical problems of building houses themselves and the actual construction responsibilities as resting with the local authorities. As we know only too well, had we had more progressive local authorities in many parts of the country we would have many more houses built by now. I am sure that in that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Luton.
Secondly, I come to the observations of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) about the need to conserve agricultural land. Everybody would agree with his observations, and I also represent an agricultural constituency, but it is very important indeed for us not to over-emphasise the importance of this plea at this time. If we do that we cease to recognise the real fact that this is an industrial nation, the whole reason for town planning legislation in the past, and that its impetus came from the public health movements of the 1840's and towards the end of the 19th century.
If we try to follow a policy of containment of the towns we shall reach a position where we shall go back to the old back-to-backs of the 19th century. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed, because it is all wrapped up in the question of density of house building. If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will look into the matter in greater detail, he will realise that people living in towns have as great a right to fresh air as people living in the country.
Mr. Turton: Would the hon. Member deny to farmers the good agricultural land? Why not let the towns have the bad land that will not produce food?

Mr. Donnelly: I agree with the hon. Member. If the hon. Gentleman had listened a little more carefully he would have heard me say that this policy, if pursued too far, will lead to a containment of the people living in the towns.
In conclusion, may I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) about the Welsh Board of Health? The people of Wales are glad that the Welsh Board of Health, which has done such good work in the past, is to be maintained and strengthened in the future. I wish to record my own appreciation and that of many of my hon. Friends on these benches from Wales that the two right hon. Gentlemen, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Local Government and Planning, have been able to effect this successful and somewhat Irish arrangement which, nevertheless, will be very successful in Wales.
I say with no disrespect to the Minister of Health that many of us are particularly concerned that there should be no lowering of the status of the National Health Service as a result of the fact that the Minister of Health is no longer a member of the Cabinet. I add my support to all those on these benches who think that the National Health Service is one of the great social experiments of our time, which must not be reduced in status as a result of the ministerial changes that have taken place.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I am bound to approach this Order from two standpoints, that of a Member of Parliament and that of a member of two local

authorities. As a Member of Parliament I hope that the House will approve the Order. I can see the dangers in it, particularly those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). To my mind, however, the over-riding consideration from the Parliamentary end is that we allowed a situation to arise where the Minister of Health, under the old arrangements, was forced to carry an intolerable complication of work. I have no idea whether that was the main reason why the previous Minister of Health appeared somewhat testy when he stood at that Box, but I say seriously that it must have been unsound that one Minister should have had to divide his mind in so many different directions and advise the Government on high policy over such a wide range of matters which were not necessarily interconnected.
For that reason it seems to me, from the Westminster end, that it is wise and right that we should try this new experiment. I wish that the new Minister was to be the Minister for Local Government and Planning and not the Minister of Local Government and Planning. I do not like the slightest suggestion of any ministerial control over local government. Nor do I believe that this is necessarily the end of the story. Eventually, we may create some structure quite different from this, but this seems to me a reasonable step to take at present, and I wish the new Minister all good fortune, as well as all wisdom, in the discharge of his responsibilities.
Now may I say a word from the local authority standpoint? After all, I have had to send a letter of apology to the mayor of the borough which I represent to explain that I am not able to be present at the borough council meeting this evening because I am doing work for local government elsewhere. Members of local authorities are suspending judgment about the Order until they see whether, under the new régime, greater or less understanding will be shown of the job which they as elected members have to do.
Fifteen years ago, the Lord President of the Council would have delivered a stirring speech from a local government standpoint on an Order like this. He has also served in the honourable office of Home Secretary. I hope he will not mind


my saying that of the four or five Government Departments with which local authorities constantly have dealings, local authorities generally have found the Ministry of Health more understanding of their problems than any other Government Department. That was not a matter of Ministerial difference; it was a matter of tradition, long built up.
Local government officers and civil servants are in constant contact, and somehow or other it seemed to local authority members and officials that they were able to talk the same language to a greater extent with the Ministry of Health than with any other Ministry. Naturally, they are waiting to see whether the new Ministry will talk local government language, or will confine itself to Whitehall language so that they will need an interpreter to get on with it.
All of us on the local government side are hoping—and, frankly, we are believing—that there will be no set-back in this respect, and that the traditions of the Ministry of Health will be transferred to the new Department—the geographical transfer, at any rate, will be the minimum one—and that the same happy relations, so far as happy relations are a desirable state of things between people on two sides of the table, will persist.
Having said that, I should like to add that the new Minister will be expected by local authorities to study very carefully the technique of getting the best out of local government—not merely getting the best out of it from the Whitehall end, but so comporting himself in his relations with local authorities that they will be free and enabled to do their best work. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman particularly the First Report of the Committee on Local Government Manpower, which was published a year ago, and the very significant memorandum of guidance included in that Report. That agreed memorandum was drawn up by the Committee for the benefit of its subcommittees. The Committee on Local Government Manpower is composed of senior civil servants, elected members of local authorities and senior officers of local authorities. It is significant that they all agreed upon this statement of principles, and the fact that the Report was signed by civil servants is an indication that there was, at any rate, no Ministerial disapproval for what was there said.
If I may read to the House and to the Minister this one paragraph from the Memorandum of Guidance, it should, I think, be accepted as an extremely important statement of what the right relations should be between national and local government:
General approach.
To recognise that local authorities are responsible bodies competent to discharge their own functions and that … they exercise their responsibilities in their own right, not ordinarily as agents of Government Departments. It follows that the objective should be to leave as much as possible of the detailed management of a scheme or service to the local authority and to concentrate the Department's control at the key points where it can most effectively discharge its responsibilities for Government policy and financial administration.
If we could get that universally accepted in practice, and not only on paper, on the local authority side we would be happier than we have been for years.
May I illustrate, by another quotation, the very opposite of the practice which is there recommended? I will now quote from the minutes of the meeting of the London County Council on 24th October, 1950. Mark the year. This was in the report of the Welfare Committee to the Council:
The Council on 11th October, 1949, authorised the sale, as surplus to the council's requirements, of a small piece of land forming part of the garden at 88, Coombe Road, South Croydon. The Minister of Health has, however, intimated that he is unwilling to agree to a sale, but would be prepared to consent to a lease of the land for a term of 35 years.
The land in question was less than half an acre. The proposed sale price was £25. Instead of that it was laid down by the Ministry of Health that it must not be sold but must be leased, and the rent was then fixed at £1 a year. That interference caused the Council a delay of no less than 12 months in getting on with the job. Besides, delay in itself always costs money. The advantage to be gained must be enormous if it is to justify the waste of 12 months' time. If the new Minister will lend his powers to eliminate from the relations between national and local government that sort of tomfoolery, we shall all get on.
Elected members of local authorities are free and responsible citizens who, voluntarily, have taken upon their shoulders an obligation of which they cannot divest themselves so long as they remain in office. If they find themselves


frustrated by Government Departments or Ministers, they must either speak out, or they must resign. If the new Minister will recognise that principle of freedom, and will assist rather than impede elected members of local councils to discharge their own personal responsibility to the neighbourhood which has elected them, then he will be doing a great service. But, if this change should by any chance impede progress for the better in matters of that kind, let him know from the very start that local authorities will speak out and will assert themselves in a manner that undoubtedly will hold up the intentions of Parliament.
9.19 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I do not dissent in principle from what the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) has been saying. It is quite legitimate that the local authorities should wait and see about this matter and suspend judgment on it. For my part I have no objection whatever to local authorities asserting their lawful rights or independence and having an occasional row with one of the Departments. I have done it myself and thoroughly enjoyed it, and I do not see why some of the local authority people who remain in office should not follow my excellent example. I know they used to live at peace with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. The Home Office was a little firmer with them, and quite right too.
I got on with the local authority departments. They were most obliging to the London County Council, except about a bridge, and even then I got half a million out of them in the end. After all, we had been pretty bad. We had not only defied the Government, but the House of Commons—as we were perfectly entitled to do. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and now everybody says we were right. Therefore I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right and that local authorities will always reserve their right to have a "dust-up" with the central Government. I am perfectly sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning will not resent it. If they want a bit of fun he will be there to have a bit of fun back and that ought to add to the gaiety of the nation.
As to the relations they had with the Ministry of Health, I do not see why those

good relations should not continue with the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. My right hon. Friend is a peaceable person to get on with. Moreover, many officers from the old Ministry of Health have been transferred to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, and therefore when local authorities go there they will not find the place entirely inhabited by strangers; and my right hon. Friend and I hope they will get on all right.
Equally I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health the best of success and good luck in administering what is a very great and complicated Service. I agree with the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) who made a knowledgeable speech on the problems with which he was dealing. Anyway for a time, my right hon. Friend will not be unemployed. He has there a vast new service and there is a lot of organising work to do. There are a great many problems to be tackled in the great Health Service and those, together with the fairly long list of other things to which he has to attend, will I am sure keep my right hon. Friend fully occupied.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) quite rightly and reasonably asserted that this was an important Order and it was right therefore that the House should have a talk about it. That, in fact, is what we are doing. As he said, this is not a matter of party politics at all. It is a matter upon which it is permissible for everyone to disagree with everybody else, because it is a judgment of what is a good lay-out for administration. That is all it amounts to. There really is not any party politics in it at all, and, to the credit of the House, I do not think anybody has tried to make party politics out of it.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said this is a major transfer of powers, and not a minor transfer, and therefore he queried whether we ought to have done it by affirmative Resolution or even by legislation. It could not now be done by affirmative Resolution because under the Act which I introduced a transfer of powers has to be dealt with under the negative procedure. Therefore it was not open to the Government to put it under an affirmative Resolution once that Act was passed. In any case the important


thing about an affirmative or negative Resolution is that the House has the right to have an argument, and, if it wishes, to divide and upset the decision of the Government. We did not bring in a Bill because the whole purpose of proceeding by Order is to make it unnecessary to bring in Bills.
It was rather foolish that we could not have a transfer of functions between one Government Department and another without bringing in a Bill to do it. After all, the London County Council, and any other municipal authority, can transfer functions from one committee to another by mere resolution of the council, and there is no difficulty. I quite agree that this is somewhat more serious. But, after all, this is a matter of the internal organisation of the Government. It was right that it should be possible for this to be dealt with by Order, always provided that the House could, if it wished, debate it and challenge the action of the Government on a Division. I am not shocked about that at all. I think that it is a reasonable and proper thing to do, with Parliament's full rights protected in the way I have indicated.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether this would lead to more speedy action as to housing, local government reform, and so on. I would not argue that that was the purpose of the Order. The purpose of the Order is to provide what we think is a better distribution of Ministerial and Governmental functions between certain Departments of State. Indeed, I would not say that the questions of policy and what will happen on a number of fields of public policy, were particularly relevant. This is a question of where and under what Minister certain functions of Government should be placed. What we have to consider is whether the Government are right in the judgment they have reached on these matters.
I would say that, broadly, these were the reasons for the decisions that we took, subject to their not being upset by the House of Commons. The Ministry of Health had become a very big Department. As a matter of fact, the name was not any longer a true description of the whole of that Ministry, because it had many functions which were not strictly health functions at all. But people like playing about with the names of Ministers

and, after the First World War there began to be a great pressure to call somebody the Minister of Health, and so the President of the Local Government Board was re-labelled Minister of Health in 1919. As a matter of fact my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal was the first Minister of Health. Some of the functions were somewhat changed, but really it was not much of a change of substance from the functions of the President of the Local Government Board. It mainly meant that we got a more ugly and less dignified designation of the Minister than we had before. I think that the title of President of the Local Government Board meant something, even if there was no board. That did not worry me at all.
I never thought that the title of Minister of Health was a particularly bright idea, but my right hon. Friend has to put up with it. In those days, in the period after the First World War, when Conservative, Coalition and Liberal Reformers were knocking about, they found it easier to reform things by changing the titles of Ministers than by doing anything that really mattered.

Mr. Nabarro: They did build many houses in the process.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry that that little observation should have stirred up the party opposite in that way.
I would say that the first reason for the changes made by this Order is that the Ministry of Health had become very large. It was very big and it was not easy for one Minister to keep his fingers on the administrative organ, particularly as there had been added the very big National Health Service which requires a lot of attention, at any rate for the time being and for some years to come. So it was desirable to diminish the size of the Ministry of Health.
On what principles should we proceed? The first principle that we applied was that the Ministry of Health should really become the Ministry of Health. In addition to the National Health Service functions, which are very big and which will give my right hon. Friend plenty of work to do, we added a considerable list of other functions which are really health functions, some of them related to local government and some to national government. We tried to consolidate health functions, whether the National Health


Service or otherwise; they are with the Ministry of Health and I think that is right.
The Ministry of Town and Country Planning was also the child of history. It must be remembered by hon. Members who are saying that town and country planning ought not to go with housing, that it was with housing from the time of Mr. John Burns and the Town Planning Act of 1909, right up to the days of the Coalition Government. It was in the Ministry of Health; so was housing, and a lot of other things. But, again, the specialists got to work. Planning functions went to the Ministry of Works, which became the Ministry of Works and Planning. They did not stop there, though I do not know why, and the enthusiasts could not be satisfied until they got a Ministry of Town and Country Planning all to themselves, and the Coalition Government gave it to them.
I have my own views about that, but it is part of the history of public administration that, all too often, we surrender to specialist enthusiasts and give them things with little labels to play about with and keep them happy. The truth is that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning did not get enough to do. It is untrue to say that it provided more than a one-man job. Of course, one man could easily make a full-time job out of it, just as he could also have made it six full-time jobs, or, if he was a bright fellow, perhaps 10. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning, of course, had a good deal of work at the beginning in getting an Act of Parliament going and getting it into operation. The late Minister understood it; I hope everybody else does. [An HON: MEMBER: "Do you?"] The hon. Member should not ask me.
Moreover, there is a danger about town and country planning being left with no physical and real things to be concerned with; that is to say, if it is divorced from the realities and the bricks and mortar of life, it can become longhaired. [Laughter.] I think it would be a great pity if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning suddenly developed long hair. Therefore, I personally always held the view that it was undesirable to leave town and country planning by itself. It

was desirable for it to be dealing with real physical things, to be operating, managing and making things happen, playing about with bricks and mortar, as well as with the pretty pictures on maps and graphs and what-not. Therefore, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning have taken over these functions, a number of which are related to town and country planning, as has been said.
Another point was the transfer of housing to that Department. Housing is one of the kernels of town and country planning. By the way, this is in accordance with an electoral promise which we made in 1945, and which we have just carried out, to take housing to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, a Ministry of Housing."] I do not think so; perhaps hon. Members will look it up. I think it will be found that the proposal was to transfer housing to the Town Planning Ministry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I have ceased carrying the programme about in my pocket now. It is in "Let Us Face the Future." [Interruption.] Well, all right; perhaps I am wrong, but what does it matter?
Once we take these functions to the Town Planning Ministry—the functions of housing—what are we going to do with the miscellany of a large number of local government functions and the relationships with local authorities on loans, sewers, and drains, which are very much related to planning and housing. Then we begin to get to the point where we say, "Well, you had better make a Ministry of Local Government and Planning." That is the beautiful title we have invented for this Ministry, and I hope my right hon. Friend thoroughly enjoys it. I hope that one day we shall find somebody who will invent names for State Departments as they did hundreds of years ago, instead of having these products of capitalist utilitarianism. They cannot think of decent names. For instance, there is the Ministry of Works—but, perhaps, I had better not say any more about it or I shall be out of order. Well, there it is. Those were the reasons and I think they are all of them tidy reasons that stand up pretty well.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove put the point, although he did not argue it too much, that there


was a relationship between tuberculosis and housing. I do not dispute that, but there is a relationship between tuberculosis and a number of other things. One could even mention excursion trains to the seaside which keep people's lungs full of fresh air, but that would not be a reason for merging Transport and Health. Therefore, I think that argument was a bit overdone, and that it is right that tuberculosis should come under the Ministry of Health and not under the Ministry of Transport.
All these arguments about prevention and cure, and so on, are useful up to a point. But the question is, how do we tie up things so that they work in the most practical way? An argument was developed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, and reinforced by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton (Mr. Turton), that it was dangerous for my right hon. Friend to have town planning and housing because he might be biased in favour of housing and against agriculture, and that this would prevent him from being an arbitrator in disputes between the agricultural Ministers and the housing Ministers. I do not think that is realistic. In the first place, my right hon. Friend himself, in association with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, sent out the circular which was quoted by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. It was very sound doctrine, as he agreed, and I know nobody who is more enthusiastic than my right hon. Friend—no less than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—to preserve England's green and pleasant land, and to preserve our countryside. If I may say so, so am I. I have been active in Government with a view to that being done.
But it must not be thought that by merely having a Minister of Planning without housing, that would necessarily enable him to be a decisive arbitrator. He himself, when Minister of Town and Country Planning, might have disagreed with this Minister or that about a proposition, or even with two Ministers. What happened then, as hon. Members who have been in government know, is what happens now. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture takes a strongly different view from that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning, there are avenues in the machinery of Government

through which these things can be collectively considered and decided. Therefore, I can assure the House that I do not think it need have any fear on that particular point.

Brigadier Medlicott: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) put the point that agriculture at the present time was containing the development of towns. Surely, the opposite is the case. The towns are encroaching upon agriculture to the extent of anything up to 20,000 acres a year.

Mr. Morrison: I understand that what my hon. Friend was putting forward was that there is always a possible conflict of claim between agriculture and housing, or between agriculture and other interests. I know that is so, because I have had to do something about considering these things. So there is nothing strange about that, but I entirely agree with what has been said, that we must try to watch this building over of agricultural land. It is a curious thing that although the population has not gone up—in some places it has diminished—the area of agricultural land has diminished. I am worried about it. It is a point to take into account—not only from the point of view of food production, but because the green fields and the green scenery are part of the beauty of the country, and I do not want to see it lost.
Reference was made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to Sir William Douglas and the date of his retirement. I understand that Sir William, who has been long in public service, will be making his departure from the Civil Service at no distant date, but not this side of 31st March, anyway, because as Accounting Officer he has certain duties in that respect. He may be leaving fairly soon, but I do not know the exact date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who takes a great interest in health administration matters, was a little mistaken, I think, in his assumption that we had split the health functions between two Departments. I would not say there may not be something in that; but there is not much in it. I think he was a little confused by reference to certain health functions and a list of Public Health Acts, and about some of the functions that have gone to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. As he will realise on reflec-


tion, because he has local government experience, some of the Public Health Acts are not concerned with health in the sense that the National Health Service is, and not with medical business: they are concerned with sanitation and that sort of thing.

Mr. Messer: I said so.

Mr. Morrison: All right. I am taking notice of what my right hon. Friend said. If I have repeated what he said, I am sorry.

Mr. Messer: I used that as an illustration, and I said that there was a danger that the gap might be widened. I said there was a danger that the National Health Service might not be a unified service.

Mr. Morrison: I see. I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. As a matter of fact, the division is pretty reasonable. If a matter is really a health matter it goes to the Ministry of Health. These regulatory functions, administrative functions—it may be proper—should go to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. My hon. Friend said that the local authorities used to go to the Ministry of Health for all things. Well, I doubt whether that was ever true, because there was always the Home Office, and since 1919 there has been the Ministry of Transport, and there was the Ministry of Education; and there have been certain other Departments of State with local government functions. I am not sure that local authorities could go to one Department only concerning their affairs—unless it was some hundreds of years ago when the Home Office was almost the only internal Department of State. However, that is a small point.

Mr. Messer: I said for the purpose of getting sanctions for loans—loans for no matter what service.

Mr. Morrison: I think they will now go to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. I do not think it will be any more complicated. They will go to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning instead of to the Ministry of Health, and when they get there they will find largely the same people functioning, so that they will not feel too lonely, and it will be all right.
The hon. Member for Think and Malton—I have already referred to his point about the loss of agricultural land—said that he had a list of about seven Departments of State that were all land grabbers, and there was only one land retainer, the Ministry of Agriculture. He could have added to the seven, because nearly every Department of State is a land grabber sooner or later. There are the three Service Departments, for example, and the Ministry of Works, too. However, I have dealt with that point. I see his argument—except that the facts are more favourable to him than his argument. I do not think he need worry about it, because the Ministers at the agricultural Departments are not backward in fighting for the rights of agriculture. It is so, and it is right that it should be so; and if they feel that somebody is doing something likely to damage the agricultural interest they will not hesitate to take the matter higher up and to get a fair decision about it, and to make other Ministers discuss it.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) kindly gave general support to the proposals embodied in the Order. He thought—and I agree with him—that the proceeding is right and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. I am glad he thought that the arrangement which, in principle, has been arrived at between my right hon. Friends the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Minister of Health in respect of the Welsh Board of Health is, on the whole, reasonable and fair in the circumstances; and I am glad to know that the Chairman of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire concurs in that view. My right hon. Friend assures me that the direct access of the Welsh Board of Health, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will not be interferred with by the new arrangement. On the contrary, he upholds the undertaking he gave to Welsh Members at the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) produced evidence in quoting my noble Friend Lord Jowitt as saying that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning would be full-time. I agree that it probably was in the early stages. In any case, my noble Friend, who was then in this House, had to make a case for doing something and he put up the best case he could, and I would say he was right at the time. However,


as time went on it really was not full-time, certainly not for a man of the undoubted energies and abilities of my right hon. Friend, now the Minister of Local Government and Planning. I have dealt with the arbitrator point.
My hon. Friend was also anxious to know whether the bylaw making powers might be in one Department and the relevant policy-making powers and administration in another. I am told the arrangements are that the bylaw making powers go with the relevant policy-making powers in the same Department, so my hon. Friend can be happy about that. I agree that at first sight it looks arguable whether the Registrar-General should be with the Ministry of Health, but I think he should. It could be argued, but what does he deal with? He deals with births, deaths and marriages. Births and deaths certainly have something to do with health, and marriages may have somethine to do with it sooner or later. I therefore think on the balance of the argument that the Registrar-General is rightly with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), who on these occasions of non-party discussions always makes valuable contributions to our debates, supported the Order on the whole. He thought planning and housing were related, and, if I may say so, I agree with him, as the House well knows. He did say that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning had not been powerful enough to protect itself against the Ministry of Health in an argument. I do not know about that. My experience, as one who has had a lot to with arguments between Government Departments, is that they are all pretty lively and energetic when it comes to an argument. Some of the provisions of the National Assistance Act are still with the Ministry of Health, and I think rightly so because they relate to health administration. Those parts to which the hon. Member referred are still with the Ministry of Health.
Evacuation and reception are not in the Order; I think this must be a matter of administrative arrangement reached between the Ministers. I understand that evacuation and reception will be under the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. What will be under the Minis-

try of Health are the rest centres, which is quite a distinct thing. There may be some confusion there between the reception end and the rest centres, but the rest centres are quite a distinct thing; they are places where people who have been bombed out go to temporarily for accommodation, rest and feeding; they have got nothing to do with evacuation as such. I agree that if evacuation were under one Department and reception of the evacuees under another, that would be wrong, but I think that is not so.

Mr. Molson: Can the right hon. Gentleman help me about one matter? The retained health functions are contained in Part II of the Schedule of the Order, and, therefore, the welfare services which are in fact the whole of Part III of the National Assistance Act ought, I should have thought, if they were being retained by the Ministry of Health, to appear in Part II of the Schedule.

Mr. Morrison: I think that the explanation is that as this is a power which the Ministry of Health retains, it is not really necessary to set it out in the Order. It is when we come to transfer of power from one State Department to another that we should set it out. I must admit that there are a number of things set out here that are in fact retained. I will consider the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that there is nothing wrong. I am much obliged to him for raising it, but it is a power which the Ministry of Health in any case have already.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was rather worried that we were a little quick about the dating of the Order—that it was coming into operation rather quickly and that it would have been better if we had waited for Parliament to re-assemble.

Mr. Molson: My point was that it would have been better if this Order had been introduced early in the Christmas Recess so that there would have been an opportunity to effect this change before Parliament met which always imposes a heavy burden on the Departments.

Mr. Morrison: There are two answers to that. It is hardly an idea to put into the Government's head that we should appear to be evading Parliament so that we can get used to things before Parlia-


ment can interfere with us. I take note of the point. I will bear it in mind, but I do not want to take advantage of it. The real answer is a practical one. There came a time when the Prime Minister decided, with the consent of His Majesty, that certain changes in the composition of the Government should take place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that when those changes took place he was going to make readjustments in the functions concerning State Departments. He thought that that was the time to do it, and I do not think he was wrong.

Mr. Molson: I am interested to learn now that it was the Prime Minister who wanted to make the change. A letter was written by the late Minister of Labour stating that the burden on him was becoming intolerable and that he wanted to go to a lighter Department.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman said that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] This was part of a matter of agreement. I did not know that I was going to be led into matters of Ministerial changes like this. It is true that my right hon. Friend did admirable work and that as Minister of Labour he did make certain representations to the Prime Minister, but in the end it was the Prime Minister who had to make the changes. I do not think that there is anything to make heavy weather about.
The hon. Member for Luton, as I have said, made a well-informed speech about the matters under consideration, and he asked me what the effect of this Order would be on local government administration and so on. Strictly speaking, the answer is that these things are not particularly relevant to the Order. This Order, as I have said, is related to the functions of central Government only, and these things do not change the functioning of local government. I think that he was sound in his argument about the functions to be discharged. He made the point that possibly some of the distribution of functions we made may be wrong. The doubt is legitimate, and we shall have to watch the matter. The glory of this procedure under this Act of Parliament is that if we made a little mistake we can promptly alter it by making another Order. That is how things ought to be, but I hope that we may not have to do so. The hon.

Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) was generally for the Order, and I am glad that he felt able to welcome the discussions and conclusions which had been reached about the Welsh Board of Health.
I think that I have dealt with the points raised by the discussion. It has been a useful discussion, and it is right that something should have been said on this subject. There has been a great deal of agreement, and in all the circumstances I trust that the House will feel that we are on the right general lines. I sincerely promise that if it should prove that there is something imperfect about this Order we shall be happy to receive representations, consider them and make the necessary revisions. We have had a fruitful discussion of this problem of administration, and I trust that at the appropriate time the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may feel it possible to ask permission of the House to withdraw his Motion.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: The Lord President of the Council was a bit coy in admitting to my right hon. and gallant Friend that the only justification for this Order ought to be that it makes Government business more rapid and efficient. I thought that he avoided that issue because he did not want to imply that under the present organisation it is slow. It must be obvious that his allegation that it is merely a desire to tidy up nomenclature and make it a really neat looking organisation is a misleading picture. Organisation is nothing unless it produces the results in action. There is no point in changing the organisation or in having any organisation at all unless it is capable of getting business through more quickly.
The great flexibility of the British constitutional system is that Ministers are responsible to the Crown, and if they are autocrats within their own field the need for co-ordination between them arises. It is a commonplace that it is extremely simple to co-ordinate action within the same office. It becomes a little more difficult when it is a matter of co-ordination up and down the passage. Coordination between different divisions of the same Department becomes more difficult still, but if there is to be real trouble it is when a file has to be sent out of one Department to another.
The real benefit from this change arises out of the fact that many of the actions requiring co-ordination will now be coordinated within the same Department, whereas, hitherto, they have had to be co-ordinated between two completely autonomous Departments at the Cabinet level—through the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. It is perfectly clear that this is a re-organisation which has been carefully thought out and is in terms of greater speed and efficiency in the conduct of Government business.
I do not think that the Lord President has made any point about his preference for procedure by order to procedure by a Bill. I think it is admitted that the House can contribute a great deal to proposals of this kind, and that there are hon. Members who could have been particularly knowledgeable and helpful if this re-organisation had been brought forward as a proposal rather than an enactment. There have been today many instances of such ability, as has been shown in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and was shown even by the Lord President when he admitted that "there are a number of things set out here that are in fact retained." It has apparently not been authoritatively settled whether the Minister of Health remains responsible for the powers reserved to that Minister in the National Assistance Act. These are good examples of how the House could carry out its right and proper function in dealing with proposals before they become enacted.
Similarly, I think it was very interesting to note the way in which the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) drew attention to another aspect of the matter, the responsibility for "livestock" on verminous persons. There are a great many things which obviously need to be tidied up, and yet it seems to me that it is obvious that that would have been cleared up in advance if the Bill procedure had been adopted.
When it comes to the question of timing, I do not accept what the Lord President said, namely, that it was an issue of personnel and re-arrangement of the Government which led to this reorganisation. It must be the other way round. This is an issue of careful planning which has been done in the interests of better Government efficiency, and the

element of expediency has entered into it because of selected personnel to fit the new posts which then exist. I do not believe the story that the former Minister of Labour was tired, and that as a consequence this new procedure was thought up overnight and was produced so that there might be this reshuffle. It seems to me fairly obvious that the thing was the other way round; indeed, it is almost an affront to our intelligence to suggest to the contrary.

10.2 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I hope the Government will forgive me if I say that I disagree with not only the procedure involved in this Order, but also the way in which the Order is framed. The very attitude of the Lord President of the Council tonight, the rather frivolous and light-hearted way in which he gave an answer to the discussion showed that the Order was not being treated with the seriousness which one would anticipate from a Government handling such an Order. I know that the Government and I sometimes differ very seriously, but I have been loyal so far to the Government, and on many another occasion I have taken my hat in my hand and walked into the Lobby. On this occasion had there been a Division, I would have asked on grounds of conscience to be excused from supporting this Order.
I have given this matter consideration for a long time. I agree with the division of certain matters between two Government Departments, but the way in which this Order has dealt with purely health matters suggests that there has been no really detailed examination of the division into retained health functions and transferred health functions. The Government should never have dealt with it in this manner. My own view is that the Government should take this Order back and come forward again with a really serious suggestion.
I am sorry that the Government have dealt with this serious matter in such a way. There are many problems dealing both with the curative side and the preventive side. It is a mistake, a delusion, and a fallacy to try to divide health matters into a curative side and a preventive side. There are problems of the preventive side which are interlaced with the curative side, and although these matters can be dealt with quite scien-


tifically, easily and harmoniously between local government and the central Government, that is not in this Order. The Minister who is to have these transferred powers given to him will have one of the most difficult jobs in the world today, although he may think it an easy job.
I can only express my deep regret. I want the House to think this matter over, because I do not want to be more of an embarrassment than I am at present. The matter should not be decided tonight. The transferred and the retained functions should be looked at again; the whole problem should be reviewed. I am sure that it would produce a much finer and better situation. The House of Commons has suffered a defeat. The Government have dealt with this matter and with the health of the nation in altogether a different way from that in which a medical professional man would deal with it. I ask the Government not to try to pass this Order tonight, but to reconsider it. I urge them to review the problem again right from the start.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: We Grenadians very seldom agree. I do not think we have ever agreed before; when we do agree, perhaps we are entitled to ask the House to consider very seriously whether the apparent majority may not be mistaken. I myself have not been in the Chamber all day, though I have been pretty good so I do not say it to reproach the Lord President, but I am sorry that he is not here: because I wish to begin by expressing my extreme gratitude to him. I had been wishing to speak, but feared most of the things I wished to say might be out of order. I would certainly not try to speak out of order, or to push across under some subterfuge something which I knew to be out of order. But the main question which I wish to get on to HANSARD is now quite definitely in order.
The Lord President made what, from him, I suppose, we must call an argument; even for him a comparatively elaborate argument, amid the string of damp squibs of facetiousness to which the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) has referred. It was an argument about a proposal which I will give to the House in his own words. He said that the Government had considered care-

fully whether this change ought to be done by Bill legislation and he explained why they had decided against it and did not bring in a Bill. That relieved my mind very much. It is now very plain that if it was in order for the Lord President to demonstrate why this change should not be done by Bill, it is probably in order for me to demonstrate why it should have been done by Bill.
I propose not to limit myself wholly to criticism of what is being done but to try to indicate why it should not have been done by this method. That must be plainly in order, after the Lord President's speech. I hope to say a word or two about why the thing should not be done by Statutory Instrument though I will not trespass on the time of the House or your indulgence by explaining why it should have been done by Bill, if at all. The Lord President told us one reason why it had to be done: that the job is not adequate. I have no doubt that as a rule the Lord President's jobs are adequate. He said that he did not think that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning was an adequate job. He almost said that this was what you might call a Dalton Refiationary Bill.
It was because of his right hon. Friend's energies and abilities this had ceased to be an adequate job, and something of greater importance and attracting more public attention must be found. That was the Lord President's suggestion as one of the principal reasons for doing it. For all I know, it is one of the principal reasons for doing it. That is not the sort of thing that ought to be done by an Order in Council, the blowing up of "busted" Ministers. That should be done by other methods, and the procedure by Bill is an admirable method which, if the Lord President feels himself Hercules enough to do the blowing up, he had better try. He ought to use the proper pump, and not to try to short-circuit the thing, or he may "bust" himself if he is not careful.
The Lord President was very anxious about titles, too. When we discussed this matter earlier he complained that conservative traditions were going and that nowadays people were not inventing good enough titles for Ministers. "Centuries ago," he said, "men were imaginative and devised fine, sweet-sounding titles for Ministers." He is in great error if he does not think that men now devise fine,


sweet-sounding titles for Ministers. A good many of them would be out of order, but plenty of them are devised, and if he would like to consult me on another occasion I should like to tell him some of them.
This particular title does not really mean what they think it means. I am inclined to agree with the criticism that if they are going to say "Minister of Local Planning and Local Government," it should be "Minister for Local Planning, etc." I do not think that is a purely verbal point; there is a matter of substance contained in it. This, at any rate, I am certain, that if "Minister of Local 'Government and Planning" meant anything it would mean "Minister of Local Government and Minister of Local Planning." What this is intended to mean is precisely the opposite. It is intended to mean "Minister of Local Government and of Central Planning." The Lord President's attempt to devise a sweet-sounding title on this occasion has not succeeded in throwing out much light or much sweetness, and is certainly highly inaccurate.
I want to come to the main point: it seems to me this main thing should in every but the legal and verbal sense be the creation of a new Ministry. Under the Statute they cannot formally create a new Ministry by this procedure, but this amount of transfer of functions, of this degree of importance, amounts in fact to the creation of a new Ministry. I wish to invite the attention of the House for about three or four minutes to reasons why that should not be done by this method.
It has been commonplace throughout all these additions of executive power and the ease of transfer of functions between executive persons is an addition of executive power—to say—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of saying that I have used this argument over and over again with my own leaders in the past—in introducing Bills, "Of course, it is quite true that, if the powers for which we now ask were to be used bang up to the hilt, that would be intolerable, but Ministers are sensible chaps and we are all honest folks," and all that kind of thing. Never was that argument more over-used than in the passing of the Statute by which this instrument is being given the force of law.
I will not weary the House—I do not think we could weary the Lord President by refracting back to him his own utterances—but I will not take his time nor weary the House by reading all the speeches made by him and his right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. But we had all sorts of phrases about "mere adjustments," "the normal thing would be," "matters of" I have forgotten what, and "tiny little affairs" and so on. The whole promise was that this was not to be normally used for any considerable matters. I would like to ask the Lord President or one of his right hon. Friends if they know how often instruments have been used under this Statute. Have they any idea? Nearer twice or 30 times? Has the House any idea?

Mr. Morrison: Two.

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The number of times the thing is done,and the amount and quantity that is done at the several times, when added up really alter the nature of the thing which is done. This power has been used on comparatively slight occasions but on my own reckoning, at least 13 times in 1946, 1947 and 1948. I do not know about the last two years. I say that to use it that sort of number of times for that sort of thing—which added up was very considerable, but which could be held to be in terms of the assurances given to the House—and then to come down with a whacking great thing like this, is wholly abnormal in the terms of the arguments on the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Act of 1946. I challenge the Lord President to deny that within the terms of the arguments then used by himself and his learned Friends the present use is wholly abnormal. I do not think there is any possible chance of denying that.
That is one more step in the continual process by which, helped mainly by war—because the greatest war profiteers there have ever been in history have been the forces of Progress in this country; this is one more step in the process by which, helped mainly by two wars, the Executive has continually increased its power, and the House of Commons has got more and more overwhelmed either with the amount of business or with the sense: "Well, we have let this sort of thing go so often, let it go once more."
And now when this was done, it was done in great haste. That cannot be denied. It was done with the minimum of notice. That cannot be denied. And the reasons for the transfers involved in the Schedules have been put today with the absolute minimum of attention and seriousness. This is not one of the greatest matters we have to discuss, only because the matters we have to discuss get greater in inverse proportion to the size of the persons who govern us. Nevertheless it is quite a great matter we have to discuss and it is with very great regret that I see a thing of this sort done by this procedure.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I do not propose to talk at great length or to follow the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pick-thorn) into the ethics of the way in which this business has been done. What the House is more concerned with is the effect of what has been done, and whether or not it will be beneficial. At the moment there are one or two questions in my mind as to whether it will be beneficial and nothing that the Lord President has said has answered them.
One of the problems with which the Committee on Local Government Manpower dealt was the relationship between local government and the various Government Departments and to what extent this could be streamlined so as to take up less time. I do not see that anything in this arrangement will help to solve that problem. In fact, if we take a particular case, we can see that it might take more time. When we were dealing with the Ministry of Health, over a vast variety of services, we also had from that Ministry the necessary loan sanction. In other words, if there was a problem for discussion with the Ministry of Health, a proposal was put up to that Ministry, who vetted it from the technical point of view and, if the proposal was all right, gave the loan sanction.
What will be the position now if, for instance, a local authority wishes to build homes for aged persons? In its initial stages, that remains a problem for the Ministry of Health, by whom the plans would normally be discussed, "vetted" and approved. Will it, in future, happen that, automatically, the Minister of Local

Government and Planning will give the necessary loan sanction, or will he also want to "vet" the plans? That is what so often happens when two Departments are concerned; one Department will not automatically approve unless there is some clear cut arrangement that it should do so. I should like an assurance on this problem otherwise I see, not less, but considerably more, local government time being taken up. I want to see, if possible, the strain on local government in relation to the central Government Departments eased rather than anything else.
There has been a tendency of late for the adoption of the general principle that the Minister responsible for approving a scheme also approves the loan sanction. With a scheme involving roads, for instance, the Minister of Transport happens to be the sanctioning authority; the Home Office are responsible for certain services, and are similarly responsible for the loan sanction. I think that the Minister of Education should be responsible for loan sanctions for the particular purposes connected with his Ministry, who, after all, are responsible for seeing that a scheme which is submitted for their approval is a proper one. They should, therefore, be responsible for seeing that the finances are made available for it. It should not be necessary for local authorities to have to deal with two Departments on these matters. If something on these lines could have been conceived in the arrangements concerning the Order, it would have been generally beneficial for local government.
As regards the amalgamation of town and country planning and housing, the general consensus of opinion appears to be that the transfer will be beneficial. I am not sure, however. I am a member of a county council within the Greater London area which is also a planning authority and is very much concerned with a large part of the Green Belt. This council, which is very much concerned in its endeavour to conserve the Green Belt, has within its area a number of housing authorities who are equally concerned with pushing out into the Green Belt to deal with their housing problems.
The general feeling, hitherto, has been that even if the Ministry of Health were to press a housing proposal but the planning authority did not like it, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, at any rate, was impartial. He may now


still remain impartial—that, I know, would be his intention—but there will be the sort of feeling that there is no longer an impartial Minister whom one may approach on this problem of the relationship between housing and town planning, particularly when there is undoubtedly considerable pressure on the Minister to vary the position regarding open spaces and matters of that kind. To that extent, I have an open mind as to whether the new procedure will be good or bad, but, on the whole, local authorities will feel that there is no longer quite the same degree of impartiality.
With regard to many other functions there is, obviously, room for further divisions of function and, having regard to the many changes which have taken place in the arrangements between local authorities and the central Government, it is time that there was some general cleaning up in connection with the different things for which authorities have to approach different Government Departments. For instance, to deal with certain functions concerning children, we must approach the Ministry of Education, but in dealing with the difficulties of deprived children we have to go to the Home Office, and so on. That is all because of the way in which things have grown up, and I hope that at some time or other, my right hon. Friend will give consideration to the general problem. I do not think that he has really dealt with it in this order. He has dealt with one part of it, which may work out, but I am afraid that it will not work out too well.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I find myself in agreement with a great deal that has been said by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) but I find myself in disagreement with the Government in having introduced this sort of change in this way. There is so much implicit in this type of change that I feel we should have been able to work it out in rather greater detail. A great many of us, on both sides of the House, have felt for some years there should have been a re-allocation of duties, a re-division of duties, in matters of local government, planning, and so on, and no secret has been made of that. It has not, in fact, been a party issue in any way.
All of us, have been agreed that one of our main objects was to see that local

government should function properly, with a full sense of responsibility. That implied two things. It implied not only that the division of responsibility should be a right and fully understood division at the top, but, also, that there should be greater responsibility delegated from the centre outwards because, unless we have that delegation of responsibility, we could never get fully responsible local government.
What I object to about the manner of the introduction and the proposal of these changes is that there has been no background, no explanation, and, so to speak, no element of hope provided to local government, whatever the changes may have been at the centre. For that reason, I think it is a very dangerous thing. All forms of local government, and all its responsibility to management is affected by what we have before us tonight, yet there is no hope held out to any responsible local government that it will be able to play a larger part, that its voice will be heard to greater effect and that its electors will feel that those whom they have elected to represent them, will have more say in local responsibilities. I may be right or wrong in that, but I have the impression that that is the effect that the Order Paper before us will have on local administration. To that degree, therefore, I deplore the manner in which the Government have put the matter before the House.
It is a very grave matter. I do not suppose any of us would believe that Parliamentary government should exist in this country unless we had behind it sound, democratic, local government. It could not exist and anything which would encourage or help to rebuild something which, I believe, we have lost over the last 50 years—a sense of responsibility in local government—would be of very great service in re-establishing the prestige, if I may put it that way, of a Parliamentary government and democracy.
A great deal has been said about the implications of this Order. I want to draw attention to one particular aspect of the matter. I dislike intensely the idea that the Minister who is now to be called the Minister of Local Government and Planning should be judge, jury, accused, and everything else, all under one head. I object to it more particularly as I represent a rural area, a country division.
This objection may not seem to carry very much weight to those who represent city and borough constituencies where there are no villages and where the functions of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning have been absolutely different from the duties of the Minister has to operate in rural districts. But where it comes into the countryside it enters a field where the Minister is bound to be in trouble under proposals inherent in this Order.
I cannot imagine that he really would like to double himself. He cannot really believe that he can fulfil all the functions and duties under one head. I cannot believe he would be comfortable in setting up an inquiry into the right use of land, or the right planning of a housing estate, where he is to appear for the defendant and for the complainant and give the judgment—sitting beside himself on the same bench—in other words, where one Department of his Ministry is fighting against another Department. If the Minister wants to say something let him get up and say it: I did not hear what he said just now. No doubt he is very expert in these matters. I am talking only as a humble Member of the House, who is putting forward a view as to how these proposals will affect feeling in local government in my part of the country.
There are all sorts of difficulties which the Minister cannot possibly solve in decency, cannot possibly solve in fairness, under the conditions which I suggest. To whom is the Minister to appeal? To whom can he possibly send up such questions for final solution? Under the set-up we have in this Order, there is no appeal beyond the Minister. He will find himself involved in all kinds of contortions and distortions, and it may be—I hope not—injustices against his will. I do not believe that the intention of these proposals is to place him in that embarrassing position in which the whole repute of his Ministry will tumble down day by day.
Who is to set up these inquiries? The Minister himself. Who is to wind them up? The Minister himself. Who is to make the final decision? The Minister himself. Whatever excuse may be given for these proposals, I feel that I can never be happy unless an impartial body is set up which will deal with the final settlement of matters of dispute. I feel greatly disturbed for these reasons: first,

because of the manner in which this has been laid before the House; second, because of the meaning these proposals have as regards the functions and responsibilities of local government; third, because they would hold up to disrepute any Minister who golds the title of Minister of Local Government and Planning.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like to say one or two words in reply to the criticism the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pick thorn) produced, which I thought entirely unfounded. He did not attempt to deal with the merits of the proposals which the House have been discussing this evening and on which the House are substantially agreed. The hon. Member for Carlton ventured to accuse the Government of having betrayed some assurance which he said was given when the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act was being discussed. That criticism was entirely unfair, in my opinion.

Mr. Pickthom: The opinion of the Minister is more important.

Mr. Fletcher: I have also read through the debates which took place in 1946 when the House passed the Act under which this Order was made, and it is not correct to say that an assurance was given that there would be any limit on the transfer of functions for which the Order in Council procedure would be adopted. It is true that when the Bill was being passed through the House, it was contemplated that in normal cases the transfer of functions which would operate under the Act would be of a comparatively minor nature.

Mr. Pickthorn: Let me answer—

Mr. Fletcher: I am answering the hon. Member and ask him to listen to the answer.

Mr. Pickthorn: I have never seen anyone refuse to give way before when another hon. Member's argument was being questioned.

Mr. Fletcher: It is perfectly true that during the passage of the Bill it was contemplated that any transfer of functions would be of a relatively minor character, but it was not suggested that they would be limited to minor matters.


What is more important is this. The hon. Member for Carlton, who spoke on that Bill, and a number of his colleagues, realised when the Bill was being passed that once it was passed, it could apply to all kinds of transfers of functions. They said that transfer of functions need not be a minor matter, and that it might be a very important matter. For that reason, they argued that it was not appropriate that the transfer of functions should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. They said that because the transfer of functions might very well be an important matter, it ought, therefore, to be subject to an affirmative Resolution. That proposal was put forward from hon. Members opposite for the very reason that it was an important matter. However, the House decided otherwise. It decided that the negative resolution procedure was the appropriate one.
Having had this experience this evening, of some three and a half hours' discussion of the Government's proposals, I think that the wisdom of the course which the Government took in 1946 has been justified. We have had a very long discussion on this. We have had a full opportunity for Parliamentary examination of the proposal which the Government have made. In the result, after this discussion, the House has substantially agreed with the merit of what the Government have proposed.

10.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have had considerable discussion, but not, I think, in any way too, long a discussion. Nor can I agree that the matter has been disposed by this discussion. The House was willing, I think, to give a fair examination to the proposals which were brought forward by the Government. It was disposed to listen, was, indeed, anxious to listen, to the reasons which the Lord President would give for the steps and the merits of the steps which the Government was taking, as well as for the procedure being adopted.
First, I have one word to say to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), on both these points. But when he referred to the justification of the Lord President, the odd thing was that the House became more disturbed after the Lord President's speech than it was before. All the speakers after the Lord President had spoken had been critical

of the Government proposals—and not speakers from only one side of the House. With the exception of the last speaker, who is wrong in his facts and his appreciation of what the House had decided, everyone was against the Lord President.
The hon. Member for Islington, East, has said that these proposals met with the general agreement of the House. He was sitting just below the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan), who said that if there had been a Division he would not have supported his hon. Friends on this. Then the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), was also disquieted at the proposals brought forward, and there was a very vigorous speech by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn). There were also speeches by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. I. L. Orr-Ewing), both of which were critical of the Government's proposals.
After these speeches I think it was straining his appreciation of the situation very much indeed when the hon. Member said that these proposals met with general approval on merit. They did not. The fact is that the Government, it seemed to me, did not quite rise to the height of the argument which it had set before the House tonight. The Lord President of the Council, gave us, as always, an entertaining and skilful speech. But he did succeed in dealing with the fundamental question of public policy, the question of whether it was going to make administration speedier and more efficient. He said that he did not think that was the purpose of the Order. It seems to me that the question is, "What, then, is the purpose of the Order?" That is the point which I put to the right hon. Gentleman. I still press it. It seemed to me this was the question. I do not wish to pursue the argument further tonight, because it is a very big argument.
It is an argument, which as I pointed out in one aspect, has gone on for over 100 years, and has by no means stopped yet, and I certainly think that the matter will undoubtedly, in one form or another, come up again. My hon. Friends the Liberal Unionists have a Motion on the Order Paper on the problems of local government, and I am sure they will do their best to see that in some form or another it is discussed. For my part, and


I am sure for the part of many of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends also, I and they will do our best to see that some opportunity of the kind is given to them.
I do not think that the spirit of the debate in 1946 was fully grasped by the hon. Member for Islington, East, when he said that no actual pledge on procedure was given. It is quite true that no pledge in terms was given; but in the spirit of the debate and of the speeches—I do not propose to read them all again now; he will see there is such a thing as a spirit of a debate as well as specific pledges—it was there. When Ministers of the Crown specifically pick out the minor questions as the real justification for the procedure adopted, I do not think it is good enough for the hon. Member to say that as no actual pledge was given no actual pledge is here being broken.
In the circumstances, I do not find it possible to withdraw the Motion. We do not, as I said, intend to divide; but I do not think the explanation given of the changes proposed is adequate, and I think the subsequent speeches made it clear that it is not the view of the House either. Therefore, I would not on this occasion ask for the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.

Question put, and negatived.

CITIZENS' ADVICE BUREAUX

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I want for a few moments to draw the attention of the House to the threat to the efficiency, and indeed to the very existence, of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, which is presented by the withdrawal of the Government grant from their central organisation in the National Council of Social Service. This year the grant has been halved—from £10,000 to £5,000, and from April next it is to be withdrawn altogether. I urge very strongly that that decision should be reversed and the grant continued. This is not a party issue and, as I know that I have support on both sides of the House, I shall be brief in order

to allow time for other hon. Members to speak. The only party point which might conceivably be made against me is that the Conservative Party are always advocating a reduction in expenditure and here am I resisting a reduction; but, as I shall show in a couple of minutes, that is, in my opinion, a false point, because it would be true economy to continue this grant.
Everybody knows—not least hon. Members of this House—the extraordinarily valuable services rendered by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux in the last few years in explaining to the citizen his new rights and new duties under innumerable Acts and orders, and acting as a sort of buffer between the citizen and Government Departments. These bureaux were first officially recognised early in the war, when the Minister of Health made a twofold grant—first to individual local bureaux, and secondly for the central services rendered to them by the National Council of Social Service. The Treasury grant to local bureaux was discontinued in 1945, and I make no complaint of that, because local authorities have statutory power to make grants, and two-thirds of them in fact do so. What I am complaining about is that the central services performed by the National Council of Social Service are to lose their grant.
What are these central services? They are, first of all, to supply information to the bureaux. The National Council collects, sifts, and reduces to simple language the mass of Statutes and Statutory Instruments and Rules. No Citizens' Advice Bureau could hope to do its work properly without this, and I understand that even some Government Departments find it simpler to read the digest of the law prepared by the central organisation than to read their own Acts.
The second service maintained by the National Council is that it maintains a high standard in the individual bureaux by training their staff, and by inspection, and this is especially necessary in small towns and rural areas. A high standard is absolutely essential, for otherwise the public would lose confidence in the bureaux. A Citizens' Advice Bureau which is not adequately guided may do more harm than good. It is not too much to say that if it does not set a high standard it is better to have it closed down.
I said just now that it is a false economy for the Treasury to save this £10,000. There are about 530 of these bureaux, and two-thirds of their workers are unpaid. I am told that in a year they answer one and a half million queries. During 1948–49 they dealt with 300,000 inquiries about National Insurance, 250,000 about supplies and rationing, 100,000 questions connected with the Fighting Forces, 29,000 war damage questions, 10,000 war pension cases, and 8,000 town and country planning cases. It is quite obvious that a very large proportion of these cases, if not dealt with by them, would have taken up the time of Government or local government departments at a far greater cost than £10,000. It would perhaps not be an exaggeration to say that the Government Departments would have at least one million more queries to deal with if the Citizens' Advice Bureaux were closed. If we divide one million by £10,000—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Is there any Government responsibility for spending this money?

Mr. Keeling: The Government up to now and at the present moment are making a grant which they are threatening to withdraw.
As I was saying, if we divide one million queries which otherwise would have gone to Government Departments by the £10,000 which the Government are at present spending, we get 2½d. a time. There are not many civil servants who could deal with queries, some of very great intricacy, at a cost of 2½d. a time. It is a fact also that sometimes Government Departments actually ask for the help of the bureaux. For example, as I mentioned at Question Time today, they recently asked them to explain the census of distribution to small traders. There is no doubt at all that if the bureaux ceased to exist, the staffs of some Government Departments would have to be increased.
There is a further service which the central organisation renders. It collects information about the problems and difficulties which are causing most trouble, and informs the Government Departments concerned. It interprets the State to the citizen and the citizen to the State.
A recent Ministry of Health circular describes the part which the Bureaux could play in Civil Defence and particularly after air raids. It is quite certain that, backed by a good central organisation, the bureaux can render incalculable service in time of war. This time of international stress seems a very strange moment to choose to cripple the central organisation.
In withdrawing the grant, the Ministry of Health, as it then was, suggested that the National Council of Social Service should ask the local authorities to contribute this £10,000. The Minister must have had his tongue in his cheek when he made that suggestion. A moment's consideration will show that it is quite impracticable. The National Council of Social Service would have to approach over 500 local authorities. It would have to negotiate suitable scales of contribution. It would have a hopeless job, not knowing how many local authorities would contribute.
The House will agree that nothing can take the place of a Treasury grant. Ta continue this very modest grant of £10,000 would be a recognition of the help the Government get from the bureaux. It would be the only way of continuing that help efficiently, and it would save, as I have already shown, a much larger sum. I ask for an assurance that this matter will be reconsidered.

10.52 p.m.

Miss Burton: In common with other hon. Members I lend my support to what has been said by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I have had a good deal of experience of the National Council of Social Service and Citizens' Advice Bureaux. No one will dispute that they do a first-class job. I hope very much that the Government will feel able to withdraw the suggestion that this grant should be cut, because the central administration, which would lose this money, supplies the background information upon which the Citizens' Advice Bureaux work. The town clerks of our various cities know very well the Citizens Advice Notes which are issued quarterly. In addition there is a monthly duplicated circular while an information department is maintained at the centre. This department deals with problems too difficult for the local offices and also with those needing telephone


contact in London. A two-way traffic is supplied because the centre is used for the purpose of Government information which is put out to the country through the local C.A.B.'s. If the centre were not there, the Government would miss it very much. We all agree that it is very difficult to understand legislation, even when it is worth-while legislation, as it is today. It is most essential that we should have qualified laymen on the spot to give information. For example three specific types of claim arise today. The first arises out of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act. Secondly, we have the development schemes under the Town and Country Planning Act, and lastly there are the new rating assessments. I know that in my own city many queries arise out of that.
The work of the bureaux falls into two main categories. First, there are the day-to-day problems that arise locally, and secondly the problems which provide pointers to the need for fresh legislation or amendments. The secretary in my own city, Miss Smith—this information does not come from her—has had many questions on war damage schemes affecting small businesses, which have provided very valuable details for the headquarters of the C.A.B. on which, I know, they hope to make representations to the Board of Trade. I lend my support very much to the hon. Member. I hope that we shall persuade the Government from all quarters of the House to prevail on the Treasury to withdraw this suggestion.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Oakshott: I should like to support very warmly the plea of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). I do not think there is anyone who does not agree that the service provided by the public-spirited people who man these bureaux is one of inestimable value to tens of thousands of people who get advice and information from them. Speaking from my own experience, the bureau in Birkenhead which serves my constituency has dealt, in the last four years, with an average of over 8,000 cases a year, and many of those were of that sort where all that was wanted was a simple interpretation of some official language, which, of course, a number of these

people who are harassed and worried—and a number of old people—simply do not understand.
I think it must be the experience of many hon. Members that to these people the very sight of an official communication is almost hypnotic, and they are really so frightened of it that they do not know what to do at all. This is particularly the case with the re-assessment of houses, forms to do with pensions, forms to do with the Census, and so on; and their relief when these are explained to them in simple language by one of the interviewers of Citizens' Advice Bureaux is wonderful. Many of the questions dealt with are connected with the Service Departments. For example, a Reservist is called up and he is worried about his family; he is worried about his pay and allowances, and about his home commitments. On these matters the bureau can help him enormously.
I believe that there is a Bill coming up shortly to give some protection to men who are called up, with regard to hire-purchase agreements. This will mean an enormous amount of work for these bureaux. I should not be surprised if the Service Departments have not already consulted them about the problems a Measure of this sort will bring. Lastly, there is the thing my hon. Friend mentioned, namely, the Advice and Information services under Civil Defence, which were largely the responsibilities of the bureaux during the last war. Now it is proposed that the advice and information services of this sort should be part of the Civil Defence programme. Here, again, the Citizens' Advice Bureaux have a very big part to play.
The fact is that, for a very small sum indeed, we are getting a service which is of enormous value to thousands of people, and it would be a very great pity indeed if they were to lose the full advantage of it. I think there are two very simple questions to be considered. First, can the individual bureaux up and down the country do this really important work without the information from their headquarters? They cannot. Secondly, can the headquarters itself carry on and send out this information quickly and accurately without the grant? The answer, again, is that they cannot. I beg the Government to reconsider their decision in this matter.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I support the representations made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and other hon. Members. I feel that we cannot make enough of the point that this grant of £10,000 to the National Council of Social Service is a very cheap method of getting essential legislation carried down into the homes and minds of the people. I believe this work is being well and truly done. One of the things which gave me a great amount of satisfaction during my period of local government work was the fact that I was able to inaugurate in my own town of Ardrossan a Citizens' Advice Bureau.
I am informed now, in a letter that I have had from an official there, and also from the secretary of the Scottish Council of Social Service—because it is broken down into a Scottish Council, while affiliated to the National Council—that this whole work has been built up over the past 10 years. Incidentally, the work has trebled in the 10 years since it was started just after the war began. As an indication of the number of inquiries with which a small bureau deals, Ardrossan, which has a population of only 8,000, handles well over 3,000 queries annually.
I feel that we have to do what we can to see that this grant is carried on. Of the £10,000 allocated to the National Council for Social Service, a small portion is allocated from the National Council for the work in Scotland, through the Scottish headquarters in Edinburgh. From that very small portion we are able to have a travelling officer to send out these Citizens' Advice Notes. If we are deprived of these facilities in the smaller rural and urban areas; if we have no help from the centre on the hundred and one problems that we need to solve; and if we cannot get legislation "broken down" into the language of the people, then our work will be nullified to a great extent.
I hope that we shall manage to retain these facilities, and I appeal to the Government Front Bench and to the other right hon. and hon. Members to reconsider this whole question with a view to continuing this grant and making possible the continuation of this work. The amount of new legislation passed

by this Government over the past five years means, in my opinion, that we must have some instrument in the lives of the people so that they can fully appreciate the effect of that legislation. An hon. Member for a Welsh constituency asked me to inform the House that much the same problems arise in Wales.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I should like to speak of the effect of this matter on Scotland. In regard to employment, family problems, health and medical, there was a substantial increase in the number of cases dealt with this year as compared with last year. Under local information, travel and housing there were smaller increases. In regard to supplies and rationing and social insurance there were fewer inquiries this year than last year. Surely, the people of Scotland need someone to guide them through this mass of red-tape that we have today? The effect of this proposal on Scotland will be that, instead of having a full-time travelling officer going round and doing co-ordinating work, only one-third of his time will be given to this work, which cannot be done by a part-time officer. I therefore hope that the Minister will reconsider this decision.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I rise to reinforce the plea made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) pointed out, this may affect the Welsh Council of Social Service as well as the Central Council of Social Service. I should like to make one argument. The activities of the Welfare State are so vast that we are apt to forget the importance of voluntary action, but I believe that voluntary action has a very important part to play in the Welfare State and that it is the duty of the central Government to make it possible for men and women to give voluntary action in helping their fellow-beings. For this reason, I hope the Minister will listen to the plea that has been made.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Burke: All that has been said by the hon. Members who have spoken is true. I want to refer to one specific instance of the working of the bureaux. When the new Legal Aid Scheme


began, everyone concerned in my constituency wanted to get the new forms on the day when the scheme started and they were at the bureau. Therefore, though I say this selfishly, I hope it continues, and it cannot continue locally if it is not paid for nationally. I hope that it will continue thus to take a good deal of work off my agent, and enable me to keep my constituency safe.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Has the Minister appreciated the false economy and the folly of this action? By withdrawing this grant, in two steps he is undermining the whole system built up in 10 years. What is more incredible is that this should be done at this moment. This organisation came into being as a direct result of the war in order to help people with their quandaries. To undermine it at the present time is the height of folly. This organisation has been the pride of Government Departments and trusted by them as well as by the people. Why go and strike a blow which is bound to weaken it to such an extent that it will probably be unable to recover at all? This decision will also throw a far greater financial burden on the local rates as well as on the central Government organisation. This is the cheapest investment the Government can make, and the best one, and now they propose to throw it away. It is the worst form of economy in which they can indulge.

11.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): May I, first of all, join with all those hon. Members who have spoken in appreciation of the work of the National Council of Social Service and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux in particular? I have reason, as a result of wartime experiences, to be particularly grateful because, as Deputy Regional Commissioner for the West Midlands, I saw the Citizens' Advice Bureaux in effective action, and but for the work and high standard of training which enabled the folk associated with the bureaux to become guides, philosophers and friends, the morale of the people would have dropped to a much lower ebb. From first hand knowledge, I have a great appreciation of the work done.
Equally, like many other voluntary activities in all fields, which come into

being for one reason or another, this organisation has shown that it has not only a war-time but a peace-time use. In this second sphere those associated with it have again proved to be the guides, philosophers and friends of people in need, giving them every help humanly possible to save them trouble. That has been done exceptionally well, and has been recognised in the Local Government Act of 1948 where, in fact, power is given to local authorities to establish Citizens' Advice Bureaux, to make grants to local bureaux, and generally to do the work as a local government service in co-operation with other local services engaged in work of this kind.
I wish that many more local authorities had established local bureaux, although not for the selfish reason the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) so jocularly mentioned. After all, we as Members of Parliament often act as minor information bureaux on Fridays and Saturdays, so we appreciate what they can do for us. The Act provides for local payment. This is a local service, and there can be a grant from the local authorities to the National Council for the information which they supply to the local bureaux. It is not the Government giving the information. This is a local government service run locally, and the information is required for local purposes. Therefore, it is for the local authority to make a grant to the centre.
The only argument that is valid has not been used this evening; that is, that it will cost the central organisation a certain amount to collect the money, and that it will cost the local authorities a certain amount in clerical work, postage, and so on, to send it to the National Council. It is much easier to receive £10,000 in one cheque, passed in one transaction from one headquarters to another, than to have a thousand cheques of £10 each, or some of £5 and some of £20. But on the general principle that it is a local service, rendered to the locality, the locality ought to pay for it. There is the point, too, that in so far as wartime arrangements are concerned, local information will play a big part, and the National Council in its field will play its part in conjunction with the locality. In such circumstances there is a much stronger case for some payment in regard to Civil Defence responsibilities than in regard to normal civil responsibilities.
As I said at the beginning, I have the greatest admiration and appreciation of the work which has been done, and it is fitting that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) should have raised the matter, because I had the honour of working with his sister during the war. I hope that some time, I shall get the affection and esteem for him

that I had for her, but he will have to improve a lot before that comes about. I am afraid that I can give no assurance that a continuation of the grant will be forthcoming.

Adjourned at Twelve Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.